DownshoreDrift

Things went well tonight. Dr. Akin, president of Southeastern Baptist Theological Seminary affirmed the vote on the sufficiency of the BF&M and promised to make sure that his seminary followed the will of the Convention. He also affirmed that what one believed on private prayer language was of no major importance, as long as they were not divisive. Amen. Ed Stetzer from Lifeway also gave a great message on our need to contend for the faith, contextualize the gospel, and cooperate with others that differ on minor issues. Amen, again. These two men showed leadership tonight, and if the SBC is to be saved, our leaders are going to have to step up and bring us out of this mess. It is time for them to do so.

As for me, I am now finished talking about SBC issues. I know that I have said that before, but I gave myself an exception for 3 events: The Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit at Dwight McKissic's church, the IMB ad hoc committee report on tongues and baptism, and the build up to the SBC Annual Meeting in San Antonio this month. I was faithful to that promise and I will now return Downshoredrift to it's original purpose of chronicling where I see God at work in the world around me through Scripture, my family, my church, my community, current events, and thoughts on all types of issues. The SBC will no longer be a topic of discussion unless it just happens to intersect with one of those other areas in a significant way, no different than discussing an intersting event in another denomination.  As for this blog, consider me a-denominational.

I care about the SBC and global missions, and because of that, I have written passionately about things that I believed in. I am glad for the stand that I have taken and believe that I am on the right side of history during this troubled time in the SBC. I believe that we have done some good and some changes have come. But, if other leaders do not step up and steer us in the right direction, then there is nothing worth saving in our denomination. It is now time for them to do so. As for me,  I want to change the world, not just the SBC. I want to spend my time and energy trying to impact those who do not know Christ and strengthening those who do. I want to focus on my wife, my family, my church, and my community - not that I have neglected them, but I want to have the focus of my writing be local and personal much more than denominational. These things have gone on in my life all along, but it is time for this blog, if it is to continue, to reflect that focus completely. It is time to change.

I will be taking vacation and travelling a good deal between now and July 4th. During the summer, I will put up a post here and there about what is going on in my life and ministry, as well as observations on issues and interactions with Scripture, culture, missions, local issues, and biblical thoughts. I will also be regularly posting pictures of things I find beautiful and interesting.  By mid-July, I will be taking down every post I've ever written on SBC issues. I'll save them for myself, but the posts and comments will be withdrawn. I will also take down my posts on the gifts of the Holy Spirit. That material will be available in another format at a future time, but it will not be available on this blog. I plan to redo my blog, change my links, blogroll, and focus. You can pretty much expect a complete overhaul of Downshoredrift.com by mid to late summer.

I only ever got into this because I wanted to hold a door open for people to go to the mission field who were otherwise qualified but were being denied service by the IMB. I felt that we were dealing with religious liberty issues and that if I didn't say something now, I would regret it forever. I felt that we should not divide over disputable tertiary doctrines, but we should unite around Christ and the essentials of the truth of Scripture and our articulated, agreed upon confession of faith. I felt like this was a major issue. Along the way, I have seen incredible abuses of power and outright corruption and carnality amongst those who are called leaders. It has been disillusioning. But, I know that God is on His Throne and that He is moving mountains that have stood in the way of His Gospel going to the ends of the earth. Things are changing in the SBC. I now want to lead out missionally instead of denominationally or politically. Keep coming to Downshoredrift if you are interested in how we can change things by living out our faith instead of fighting over it. If you are only interested in SBC politics, Downshoredrift will no longer be a place to satisfy that desire. 

Have a great next few weeks. I am now headed for the beach and a much needed vacation with my family. I'll be back soon, but with a fresh focus.  As we go, may Christ be glorified in all we say, think, and do.

Grace and Peace.

Update: The Associated Baptist Press has a good article about what happened in the passage of the BF&M motion and the reaction of the seminary presidents.

Well, the Empire struck back today. I knew that it would last night when I read the spin emanating from the power structures of the SBC. They were furious that their absolute power had been curtailed a bit by the will of the Convention. It appears that they decided that Al Mohler, president of Southern Baptist Theological Seminary would fire back this morning. And, boy, did he ever.

Let me tell you what Dr. Mohler did. He said that he approved the motion passed last night that recommended that SBC entities stick to the Baptist Faith & Message as a guide for their doctrinal actions. He agreed that it was a guide. He then, turned the whole thing around and redefined what that meant. He said that, while it was appropriate as a guide, there was a need for seminaries to go beyond it in hiring professors. It was a minumum standard. He brought up examples like abortion and homosexuality from the pre-2000 BF&M. He whipped the crowd into a frenzy, got them yelling and cheering, and told them that the seminaries had to go beyond the BF&M in hiring professors lest our future pastors be subjected to heresy. We don't want that, do we? Our seminaries are now the protectors of the Truth, according to Dr. Mohler, and they will do what they please, thank you very much. Our Trustee boards of our entities will tell Southern Baptists what we believe on secondary and tertiary doctrines not defined by the Baptist Faith & Message. If you don't agree, well, there is a door that you can use.

Basically, our entities will not follow the directive of the Convention on the passage of this motion. And, no one will hold them accountable. We won a legal victory, but in the court of public opinion, Dr. Mohler hit a grand slam. Every Baptist state paper will interpret the motion the way that Dr. Mohler spun it. He was not being truthful about the issues, in my opinion, but was playing both sides of the fence. He reinterpreted the situation for all of us and told us what we believe - it happens to be the same thing that he believes. The implication was that we needed to be happy that he and others like him were there to do that for us. As a friend of mine said, the word hubris comes to mind.

Even though the people spoke and voted, and we have been told to trust our polity by our leaders and establishment bloggers when the issues were in their favor, now that the tables have turned they have changed the rules of engagement. They are redefining the vote to suit them and are telling us that nothing will change. The trustee boards of the SBC will do as they like. Dr. Mohler misrepresented the situation by saying that if our seminaries are not allowed to go beyond the BF&M, then we will all be subjected to heresy. That is simply not true. The BF&M has many articles that can be used to keep an institution orthodox. If not, then it is a worthless document, anyway. But, if you ARE allowed to go beyond the BF&M as you like, then what protection do we have against heresy? NONE. According to Dr. Mohler's rebellion against the will of the SBC, the people and churches of the SBC now have NO PROTECTION against heresy within our Trustee boards from our confession of faith, the Baptist Faith and Message, because our boards can add to it as they like, as long as they do not contradict it. It now means nothing more than a ceremonial piece of paper that is used to make sure that people believe at least that. Further beliefs will be defined by them and are completely arbitrary based upon their will and collective wisdom and understanding of what the "clear Baptist identity" is. But, since this identity is not written down anywhere, we must "trust" our trustees. By the way, if they do anything that you disagree with, you cannot get minutes from the meetings or find out who voted which way. There is no way to recall or vote out a trustee. To fix the situation requires winning presidential elections for the next 7-10 years. We have no protection from any other source within Baptist polity.

Ultimately, these men know how to play the game. The deck is stacked in their favor, and today we were given the game plan: spin, twist, and mismanage the truth. Then, stubbornly refuse to follow the will of the Convention by ignoring or reinterpreting the issue. As I have been saying all along, these men embody the definition of relativists. They change the rules to suit them, especially if any hint of power is being lost. This is truly about power, who holds it, and who wields it. Certain men have held it for a long time, and they are not giving it up. I actually don't really want them to - I just want them to quit beating the rest of us over the head with it.

Baptist polity USED to belong to the people. Technically, it still does. But, we now have an entrenched oligarchy in the SBC that thinks they know better than the people from whom they draw their paychecks. Truth appears dead. A vote is not really a vote. A majority is not really a majority. An SBC entity is biased if they do not give you the results that you desire. So, the answer is to attack, twist, spin, and sometimes lie. This is dirty pool, and the ones playing it, know it. The problem is, they can get away with it because the rank and file Southern Baptist looks up to these men and believes that they are being above board with us. I no longer believe that. My trust is gone and, as I said this morning, the system is broken.

So, obviously you can see that I am frustrated with this whole thing. But, let me say this: God is on His Throne. I never cared about power or control in any of this. All I ever wanted was to see the door held open so that otherwise qualified missionaries might get to the field so that unreached people groups can hear the gospel, believe, and be saved. We need all the help we can get. That is still my desire and the actions of a few men and the intentions of others will never stop that from happening. The gospel still goes forth and these men, though I disagree with them, are active proponents of that saving message. I praise God for that. But, it is clear that their vision of the SBC is one made in their image, following the "clear Baptist identity" as they understand it.

Apology: July 5th, 2007. The comments that I made in the post above were written in the heat of the moment and do not fully represent how I now feel. I wrote this post with a great deal of frustration over what appeared to me to be a double standard for those in leadership and many of my brethren on baptist blogs on the other side of the fence. They seem to trust Baptist polity some days and not others. There were many who were saying that the vote did not mean what it clearly meant. Because Dr. Mohler's report was loud and populist in it's appeal to those who opposed the BF&M motion, I read more into it than what he said. I went back and watched it online and I see where he did not mismanage the truth, lie, or spin. He clearly stated what he believed about the ability of Southern to hire seminary professors. He has that right. The context of his statement appeared to imply more than what he was saying at the time, but in retrospect, I see where he was just saying that seminaries have a right to thoroughly investigate the doctrinal beliefs of their professors. I agree with that. I would disagree with him if he thinks that SBC seminaries should use doctrines that go beyond the BF&M as a litmus test for hiring. He intimated that he would do that on glossolalia, but came short of using the idea of a litmus test. Nevertheless, he is entitled to his opinion and I am entitled to disagree.

Basically, my words in this post were too harsh. I struggled with it when I wrote it, but thought that it was appropriate because I was reporting what I saw and heard. In actuality, I was emotionally swayed by the atmosphere of the room, the roaring crowd, Dr. Mohler's strong presentation, the words of bloggers and others on the other side of the debate who were trying to discount the meaning of the vote, and the significance and weight of the events. I lost my objectivity and read too much into his statement. I listened to what he said but I did not really hear it. I disagree with him strongly on some of his points, but I should have been more tempered in my analysis. I was not, and I apologize.

The only area that I really believe that Dr. Mohler was a bit disingenuous was when he kept referring to the BF&M as a "guide" when the motion said that it was a "sufficient guide." But, to use that as an example of him misrepresenting the truth assumes too much and goes into the realm of judging him beyond his own words. I think that he is too smart a man to not have done that intentionally, but I could have just disagreed with him and left the emotion and accusations out of it.

To sum up, I asserted too much in this post and I crossed a line that I never wanted to. I got too caught up in SBC politics to see straight. The events of the previous month had worn on me and I lost my objectivity. This is why I know that my decision to back out of all of this, apart from an occasional opinion piece on the new SBC Outpost is the right one. It is hard to keep a clear head these days, and this is an example of my failure to do so. While I believe that the thrust of my position is correct and I continue to stand by it, I apologize for the strong language that I used in dealing with Dr. Mohler's comments. I can disagree with his position without assigning motive or falsely accusing him of being untruthful. For that, I am sorry.

It is a very late hour and I am very tired, but I am going to report what I have seen.

Let me first of all start with some news: A motion on the Baptist Faith & Message supporting the Executive Committee report that states that it, "acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention,”  was submitted Tuesday morning for adoption by the Convention. This is much stronger than the Resolution that I had written and submitted to the same effect. It is significant because it reels in our entities and keeps them accountable to the Baptist Faith & Message, our only consensus statement of faith. So, I was obviously in favor of this. My resolution will now not see the light of day because it is no longer necessary. I was standing at a microphone to speak in favor of the passage of this motion when time ran out. I was pretty frustrated with that. I had a speech written out and everything.

But, my words were obviously not needed. This motion to adopt the Executive Committee statement on the BF&M has apparently passed - the official results will be released tomorrow. This is significant because it captures the will of the Convention as it expressed that it does not desire to see our entities go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message in establishing doctrinal requirements. I praise God for this development and I see it as a major victory. Morris Chapman, the president of the Executive Committee spoke passionately in defense of this position earlier in the day. Many, many people are in favor of this perspective.

Many other people are not. Denominational - Religious Politics is rearing it's ugly head. There is a contingent of SBC leadership including not a few seminary presidents, entity heads, and reactionary bloggers who are crying foul. They are spinning this like crazy and they are saying that it does not mean what it clearly means. Many of these people are the same ones who said that the Lifeway PPL study was biased and unreliable. But, I promise you, if the BF&M motion had been voted down, these same people would be saying that it was a resounding victory for them. There are lots of sour grapes right now.

But, I am convinced that rank and file Southern Baptists consist of some of the finest people in the world. There are people here who love the Lord Jesus and want to see Him glorified. I am glad to be among such people and to hear and see how God is using them. He is bringing much glory to Himself through the faithful witness and obedience of Southern Baptists. There are others that envision a future SBC where the only people that are there are people who are exactly like them. Unfortunately for them, there are not as many like them as they think - and, even if they were, they'd find something else to fight about.  But, I am tired of fighting.

As a blogger, I have connected with others to write and influence the system for change. But, the system is broken. It can only change through the actions of leaders who see a path forward and lead us on it. I am not one of those people in denominational life. There are others who are. Last night, we took a step forward to fixing a broken system. Will the real leaders finally speak up and lead us faithfully? Or, will all that has gained be lost?

Time will tell. But, I'll not be writing about it.  It is time to go home. I have other things to do. This whole thing is in God's hands and I take my hands off of it. I pray that He brings peace and that we can move forward on mission to the ends of the earth.

After travelling for a loooong time (I left Montgomery around 3:30am and arrived in San Antonio around 3pm), I finally made it to the Convention. I pretty quickly began to connect with other folks that I know, including many bloggers. I got to talk with people like Bob Roberts (actually saw him in the airport), Ed Stetzer, Bill Crews (the president of Golden Gate when I was there), Jerry Rankin, Geoff Hammond, and Thom Rainer. I saw most of these folks in the exhibit hall at the convention center. If you don't know who these folks are, don't worry about it. It's about 12:30 on Tuesday morning and I've been up for 23 hours. It isn't important enough to tell you. If you do know who they are . . .

Anyway, I went to part of the Pastor's Conference today and it was good. Al Mohler did a fine job talking about overcoming pain through Christ. That was especially meaningful to me. I also went to a missional dinner where I got to hang out with several of the bloggers. We had a good time. Late at night, there was a Missional Gathering and Bob Roberts and Ed Stetzer spoke. They did a great job. Roberts spoke about Church Planting Movements and busted a lot of myths that people believe regarding what causes a CPM. He was dead on. I'll have to write more on that later in the summer, because he touched on so many themes that I am passionate about.

Tuesday is the big day for the submission of motions, elections, and a whole lot of business. A lot will be decided tomorrow, it seems. I'll let you know what happens, but I want to ask you to pray that God will move mountains and bring us together. That is my prayer. 

I hope to post again Tuesday night.  When I do, I plan to be brutally honest about what happened at the Convention concerning so many things that I have been passionate about. I will tell the truth and not hold anything back. It it time to lay everything out and talk about where we are headed as a Convention of churches. Just please pray for God's Wisdom to prevail and for Him to move powerfully.

More later . . .

Well, any casual reader of my blog knows that I am headed to San Antonio next week to attend the Southern Baptist Convention. I fly out early Monday morning and will not arrive until around noon on Monday. I'm staying near the airport where the rooms are cheap, but also where you have to drive forever to get to the Convention Center. I think I have a room near the Southwest hanger or something. And to think, some people have been complaining about their rooms . . . if I had only known the right people!

I've pretty much outlined all the major issues that will be coming up at this convention from my perspective. I have said what I care about and what I don't care about. One thing is for sure, this has all become VERY political.  I never in a million years thought I would spend even 10 seconds of my time as a pastor concerning myself with SBC politics. I still can't believe that I ever got involved. I guess that there were just issues that were big enough for me to start saying something. But, I look forward to stepping away from all of this very soon. I will NOT be live blogging from the convention, by the way. That job is better left to others. I will find a computer here and there throughout the convention and post some analysis of the major events from my perspective, but my writing will be more editorial than a play-by-play summary. Apparently, we now have Baptist Press to do that for us.

I will be super busy tomorrow and Sunday, so this will likely be my last post until I am in San Antonio. Pray that God's will be done and that people treat one another with respect. I had heard some about some of the political tactics used years ago in SBC politics and it appears that some of that is being rolled out for this convention. There is surely a lot at stake.  I wonder how it will all turn out?

By the way, after the Convention, I will be travelling quite a bit, so blogging will be sporadic. At some point this summer, I am going to make some changes here at Downshoredrift. Change is definitely needed.

Before I get started, I want to add to my last post on this issue by quoting an anonymous IMB Missonary who left a comment on Wade Burleson's blog post yesterday regarding the nomination of David Rogers, IMB Missionary to Spain for the SBC's 1st Vice President position: 

I believe that the greatest challenge facing our convention today is the same as it was 30 years ago, 100 years ago, and at our convention's inception. The challenge is how we can work together as a convention of many, many churches in order to reach a lost world for Jesus Christ. That is why supporting a field missionary would be such a breeze of fresh air in our convention.

Amen! That is what I was trying to say in my very long post yesterday. Exactly.

As for today, there has been MUCH fighting, jostling for position, and politicking going on over the issues that I have enumerated repeatedly on this blog. Will the SBC be a Convention of churches that represents the views of all of it's people, as shown in the Baptist Faith & Message2000, our confession of faith, or will we see our ability to cooperate narrowed to the strict views of a few on every issue that they determine to be essential to Baptist identity.

Is this really about God anymore? Steve Walker left this comment on a post of mine the other day,

I’m starting to wonder how much these discussions about PPL are really about Jesus, the Bible, and the Great Commission, and how much they are about the people who are arguing and who is smarter.

Alan, I believe you really are trying to understand and follow Jesus, the Bible, and the Great Commission. I am certain others are as well. What troubles me is that for many it appears the discussion “stopped being about God a long time ago.” Whether the appearance is reality or not, I do not know.

I could not agree more. I, for one, do not want to be smarter. I don't want to win arguments. I don't want to get everyone to see things my way. I just want to do the work of the Kingdom and join with a lot of other followers of Jesus that want to do the same. I don't want to see people get shut out because they happen to believe a little differently on a side issue of the faith that is no big deal to all except for those who only allow one view on every non-essential issue.

What we all need is a whole lot of humility. Can we say that we are wrong sometimes? Can we stop trying to win arguments that are basically pointless anyway? I confess that I have been involved in a bunch of arguments regarding these issues the past couple of weeks. I have been building up for the Convention and have been trying to frame the issues just like everyone else. But, at the end of the day, are we changing anyone's mind? What keeps us from truly submitting to one another and loving one another? What keeps us from putting one another first? Our churches will be healthy and strong and we will see people come to Jesus when we actually become like Christ, instead of just trying to win arguments. And, at this point, I am not even talking about the Baptist Battles in the Blogosphere. I am talking about the entire functioning of the SBC. What are we here for?

I think that the IMB Missionary and Steve Walker nailed it. What about you?

Without Missions Cooperation and Participation, the SBC would not exist. There is technically no reason for it to exist apart from missions cooperation. Missions cooperation is the tie that binds SBC churches together. If we do not cooperate in reaching the world for Jesus Christ through the proclamation of His gospel to every creature under heaven, then we are not truly cooperating or carrying out our purpose. There might be other wonderful endeavors like . . . . well, I really can't think of any that even compare. We are Jesus and Gospel centered churches. We are autonomous. We ascribe to believer's church and believer's baptism thinking. We are to be a missional people that are journeying with the gospel, dispensing it to others as we go.  We are pilgrims of the Way.

We will understand the future of the SBC based on how we see the role of the church. Do you see the church as a religious institution as depicted in Vernard Eller's imagery of a Commissary, or do you see the church as a travelling band of pilgrims, always in motion, moving forward like a Caravan? The Commissary imagery denotes a static institution that distributes goods and services as "members" come and receive. A Caravan denotes a people on the move that do not put down stakes anywhere. They are not comfortable nor do they have anywhere to lay their head. They are on the move because God is on the move. They are bringing people along with them. Obviously, I subscribe to the Caravan imagery. See a post I wrote on it with attendent links to Eller's work HERE.

The Cooperative Program was the big issue at the Southern Baptist Convention in Greensboro, NC last year. It was reaffirmed that we are a people who cooperate in mission and ministry through pooling our resources together to fund the task of reaching the world for Christ. We reaffirmed that we could do more together than we can do apart. Of the three candidates for president of the SBC, two of them led churches that gave small percentages to the Cooperative Program, the common fund wherein Southern Baptists pool their money to accomplish ministry. Frank Page, a relatively unknown pastor from South Carolina, pastored a church that gave over 10% to the CP. He was elected with 50% of the vote on the first ballot.

This year, we have a chance to affirm cooperation in missions for ALL Southern Baptists through supporting the sufficiency of the Baptist Faith & Message as a doctrinal guide for our entities (if the resolution makes it out of committee), through supporting a man like David Rogers as First Vice President of the SBC (that is not to say that the other candidate, Jim Richards from Texas is not a good man or would not make a good 1st VP - I am only saying that David clearly stands for cooperation for all Southern Baptists, even those who disagree on tertiary issues), and through voting for and against a whole plethora of resolutions that touch on this subject. Much will be decided in the next week regarding what type of convention we are going to be, and much will also be decided by the fallout of the events of the meeting.

This continues a series of posts that I will be writing throughout the next week in the build up to the Southern Baptist Convention in San Antonio, TX, June 11-13.  I have started by analyzing some of the division that we are facing, and as the week goes on, I will be pointing to the bigger issues that we all need to focus on and address: Mission and Nearness to God through Christ.

I have a confession to make: I am sick of talking about "speaking in tongues," "private prayer language," "glossolalia," etc. I don't care who does it or doesn't do it. I don't care who is a cessationist, semi-cessationist, open but cautious continualist, a semi-continualist, a continuationist, or an orthodontist. I am tired of the labels, the controversy, and talking about an issue that I consider to be so minor and off the beaten path of primary Biblical teaching that it really shouldn't register as a big deal. If the IMB had never created their restrictions against missionary candidates, I never would have written a post on the issue. In the previous 6 years of pastoral ministry after seminary, I had only mentioned tongues as a gift that God continues to give according to 1 Corinthians 14 in passing, as the occasion merited it. The focus of my life and preaching has always been "Jesus Christ and Him crucified," and I have no intention of changing that now.

I am ready to move on to much more important, bigger issues. I have written much in opposition to the IMB policies/guidelines and in favor of a continuationist position on the gifts of the Spirit, including tongues, not because I desire to convert everyone to my perspective. On the contrary. I have only tried to show that my perspective is defensible from Scripture and is not a fly by night theory. It now appears that there is a strong possibility that up to 50% of Southern Baptist pastors agree with the position that I have articulated. But, I wouldn't care if it were 10%. I do not believe what I believe because it is popular or because it could be the majority. I believe it because I see it in Scripture, and at the end of the day, we all should derive our convictions from there.

I am not a charismatic or a pentecostal. I do not believe that there is a second baptism of the Holy Spirit that occurs after conversion with tongues as the initial evidence. I do not believe that all should speak in tongues or that all will. I believe that you receive all of the Holy Spirit when you are saved, but there are subsequent infillings that can be quite dramatic. I believe that God continues to gift His people with supernatural gifts of the Holy Spirit as described in 1 Cor. 12-14 and that speaking in tongues as a private prayer language to God is one of those gifts. I believe that it is a minor gift and should be regulated in the church in the Scriptural manner so as to not cause distraction or division. I do not believe that it makes anyone more spiritual than anyone else. I believe that the position that I hold is the one that Scripture teaches and I am not ashamed to affirm it, although it is such a minor part of my overall focus in teaching and ministry that honestly, if this issue had not come up, I still would not be talking much about it. For a full treatment of my views on this subject, please check out my writings HERE - start at the bottom and work your way up through the posts.

WHAT I BELIEVE ABOUT THOSE I DIFFER WITH  . . . .

Yesterday, an incredible battle broke loose in SBC life over the Lifeway Report on Speaking in Tongues that I reported on in my last post. I took part in quite a bit of it. I have said over and over again that I want to be out of all of this and I want my blog to be a place of edification and peace. Happily, I feel like that happened here at Downshoredrift, but it was not the case in other quarters of the blogosphere. According to the schedule that I laid out for my readers many months back, I have now stepped into my last phase of SBC blogging. If you are not interested in what I have to say about the SBC, please check back for other posts next week, or come back after the Convention June 11-13. For now, unfortunately, I am compelled to write about this, as I said I would, to finish the chronicling of a journey that began 18 months ago when I first began to oppose the actions of the IMB Board of Trustees.

If you had told me that I would be involved in SBC life in this way through writing, interest, going to a convention (or two), and even submitting a resolution, I would have laughed out loud. I am decidedly apolitical when it comes to things like this, and in my participation here, I have found that I am ill suited for the battle that has raged. I am consistently caught off guard by the machinations of people in the SBC who use one set of rules for Baptist life when it suits them and then switch the rules when it doesn't. I am going to say some harsh things here, but this is where I believe we are headed:                           

Jerry Corbaley, IMB Trustee from California: "The IMBoT has defined glossolalia. I am confident that about 95% of Southern Baptists would agree with that definition. That would be 19 out of every 20 people."

It appears that the IMB Board of Trustees, or at least Jerry Corbaley, has misjudged the numbers a tad. Marty Duren just posted Lifeway Study Reveals SBC Beliefs on Private Prayer Language. Wow.  Here is a direct link to the Lifeway Research Study on the use of Private Prayer Language in the SBC and beyond. Let me provide a quick synopsis:

1. The survey asked Protestant pastors, SBC pastors, and laity their beliefs about private prayer language using this question wording: "Do you believe that the Holy Spirit gives some people the gift of a special language to pray to God privately? Some people refer to this as a Private Prayer Language or the ‘private use of tongues.’"

   Fifty percent of Southern Baptist pastors answered "Yes," 43 percent said "No," and 7 percent responded "Don’t know." ME - I agree with 50% of the Southern Baptist pastors polled in this case.

2. Southern Baptist senior pastors are more likely than non-SBC Protestant pastors to understand "tongues" in the New Testament to mean the "God-given ability to speak another language" (62 percent vs. 54 percent). ME - I believe that this is the case as well. Could it be that 62% of Southern Baptist pastors who believe that tongues are a legitimate language also includes those who believe it is a private prayer language as well. I believe that it can be both.

3. Southern Baptist pastors are more likely than non-SBC pastors to believe the gift of tongues has ceased. Forty-one percent responded "this gift was only given in the days of the Apostles," vs. 29 percent of non-SBC pastors.  ME - Interesting, so 41% of SBC pastors believed that tongues have TOTALLY ceased in all forms and are not being given at all today. Interesting.

4. Recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates are more likely to believe the gift of tongues has ceased than current SBC pastors. Fifty-five percent of recent Southern Baptist seminary graduates believe "the gift of tongues (as described in 1 Corinthians) ceased to be a valid gift in times past." A minority of Southern Baptist pastors (41 percent) believe the spiritual gift of tongues was only given in the days of the Apostles.

   "More recent graduates tend to be more ‘cessationist’ than their pastoral counterparts in SBC churches," explained Scott McConnell, associate director of LifeWay Research. "A majority of recent SBC seminary graduates are cessationists - the only group in our study that identified with this position at over 50 percent." ME - As Marty speculated, is this because seminary graduates are learning theology in a vacuum and when faced with real world issues they begin to change? Or, does it mean that a smaller group of cessationists are taking over the SBC and are pushing a more strict view of spiritual gifts in our seminaries than is held by Southern Baptist pastors at large? Hmm.

5. Ed Stetzer, LifeWay’s new director of research, noted there are two sizeable yet contradictory positions among SBC pastors. Half believe the Holy Spirit gives today the private use of tongues, and at the same time, 41 percent identify themselves as cessationists.

   ME - It is clear that we are pretty evenly divided on this issue, with an actually larger number of pastors siding on the continuationist side. Seems like the previous policies by the IMB were more appropriate than the current guidelines, doesn't it? Now, who has been saying that?

Check out the Ed Stetzer-Brad Waggoner podcast on the study. Here are a few interesting quotes that I pulled off from the podcast:

"There is a significant openness to private prayer language." - Ed Stetzer

"We generally were surprised by the number of Southern Baptists who believe this gift is still operative today, but I was struck by the number of cessationists. I would not have thought that 41% of our pastors would hold to a strict cessationist view. The middle ground is gone, but you either have a strong belief that it is possible, or a strong belief that it is not possible, if that makes sense." - Brad Waggoner

"One of the big findings of the study is that you've got a substantially cessationist portion of the Southern Baptist Convention, and then you have a large portion that believes that God gives some people a private prayer language. And that middle ground is not that large. And, I think that is an important finding in this study." - Ed Stetzer

Analysis

For the past year and a half, we have heard repeatedly from proponents of the IMB policies/guidelines that they were in the vast majority in Southern Baptist life. Not only did they make statements that they could not imagine any Southern Baptist pastors who speak in tongues, but they also continued to maintain repeatedly that the Continuationist position on spiritual gifts, especially tongues as defined as a private prayer language (PPL) was the extreme minority position in Southern Baptist life. This study proves that they are clearly wrong. It upholds the belief that opponents of the IMB actions have maintained all along: Southern Baptists are very divided over this issue and there is a wide range of opinion. We are better served with the previous policies that regulated the behavior on the field, but did not eliminate the person who practiced the prayer language privately. Furthermore, we are even better served if Southern Baptist entities would not develop doctrinal positions as employment requirements that go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message, 2000. I wrote a resolution that I am praying makes it to the floor in San Antonio proposing just that.

When will this madness of narrowing the parameters of cooperation according to the dictates of a few stop? The ministries, agencies, and missions boards of the SBC should be open for participation for all Southern Baptists if there is agreement with the BF&M. Southern Baptists who believe in or privately practice a prayer language should not be forced to ride in the back of the bus, while others drive the bus.

Here's an interesting point of information according to the poll: If 50% of Southern Baptist pastors believe that a PPL is legitimate, and 41% believe that all speaking in tongues ceased with the Apostles, then the IMB Board of Trustees managed to craft a guideline that only satisfies 9% of the SBC! They say that they beleive that glossolalia is only legitmiate languages that could exist today. The "only" part eliminates 50%, and the "exist today" part eliminates 41%.  Chew on that for a while.

Finally, it is clear that the IMB BoT has not acted with wisdom. But, expect the results of this poll to be attacked by people saying that it is too small a sample, it is biased, there is an agenda, it can't be trusted, we should trust our trustees, if there is a sizable group of continuationists then they should try and change things through the election process, etc., etc., etc. The truth is, Southern Baptists remain a coalition of churches that have a broad range of beliefs on this topic. The IMB BoT has steered us into confusion. They have been helped by some significant people, including quite a few bloggers who have carried their false arguement for some time now. This needs to stop and we need to go back to the previous policies and, failing that, I pray that the SBC makes a statement about entities going beyond the BF&M in San Antonio.

People will try to discount this study. Watch. But, then again, they have discounted every argument against their actions up until now. What people do with this information will show whether they believe that the SBC leadership should represent the views of the people, or the views of those who have managed to gain power. We will soon find out the answer.

The Southern Baptist Convention will meet in San Antonio, TX, June 11-13. With the move in Southern Baptist life against those who believe that a private prayer language (PPL) is what is being spoken of in 1 Corinthians 14, I have heard opponents of PPL say that they do not want to make the fact that they are excluding those who speak in tongues (PPL) from leadership and missionary service a test of fellowship. Their basic argument is that people who speak in tongues privately are welcome to stay in the SBC and send money to our Cooperative Program, but they cannot lead, serve, or participate in denominational life and missions. In other words, they are saying that they do not want to break fellowship, but they will not cooperate with them in ministry, planting churches, mission work, etc.

Here's a question: Is it possible to be in Biblical fellowship with people that you cannot cooperate with to do ministry? Isn't that a contradiction of terms? Fellowship and cooperation go hand in hand. I wrote post about this a while back that I thought was generally one of the best posts ever written (judge for yourself HERE). It got a whopping four comments, so obviously, I was alone in my generous assessment. :)  Anyway, my basic point was that true Biblical fellowship costs us something. Look at Acts 2:42-48:

42They devoted themselves to the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer. 43Everyone was filled with awe, and many wonders and miraculous signs were done by the apostles. 44All the believers were together and had everything in common. 45Selling their possessions and goods, they gave to anyone as he had need. 46Every day they continued to meet together in the temple courts. They broke bread in their homes and ate together with glad and sincere hearts, 47praising God and enjoying the favor of all the people. And the Lord added to their number daily those who were being saved.

The picture that we get here is that people were living life together and cooperating in everything. The English basis for the word fellowship comes from the idea of villagers putting in for half shares in a cow. If you own a cow together, I would say that you are cooperating on a pretty intense level, wouldn't you? The Old Testament perspective on fellowship is most notably seen through the idea of fellowship offerings before the Lord. We bring something to sacrifice to God to celebrate our close communion with Him.

In other words, fellowship costs us something. It happens when believers journey together toward a common goal. It happens because we are one in Christ and Jesus prayed that we would be one so that the world would know that He was sent by God (John 17:20-23). Our fellowship with one another occurs because we have fellowship with God through the shed blood and sacrifice of Jesus Christ. Bringing us into fellowship with God and one another cost Jesus His life. How can we denigrate it over petty differences and interpretations?

Baker's Evangelical Dictionary of Theology has an article on fellowship on Crosswalk.com.  It describes koinonia, the Greek word from which we derive fellowship. Consider this:

General Background. In the colloquial Greek of the New Testament period, koinonia [koinwniva] was used in several ways. It was used of a business partnership, where two or more persons share the same business and are thus closely connected in work. Also it was used of marriage, of the shared life of two persons, a man and a woman, together. Further, it was sometimes used of a perceived relatedness to a god, such as Zeus. Finally, it was used to refer to the spirit of generous sharing in contrast to the spirit of selfish acquiring.

Much of the use of the word group? koinonia [koinwniva], koinonein [koinwnevw], and koinonos [koinwnov"] ?in the New Testament corresponds to general Greek usage. Thus the fellowship and sharing are religious or specifically Christian only if the context requires this meaning. For example, in ac 2:42 we encounter the word Koinonia [koinwniva] and read that the new converts continued in "the apostles' teaching and to the fellowship." Here it is a normal meaning adapted to Christian usage. Then the verb, koinonein [koinwnevw], is found in Hebrews 2:14 with an ordinary, general meaning: "children share flesh and blood." Likewise, koinonos [koinwnov"] occurs with the meaning of "partner" in Luke 5:10?" [James and John] ? Simon's partners. "

However, it is especially, but not solely, in the writings of the apostle Paul that the theological dimension of koinonia, [koinwniva] "fellowship/sharing/participation" is developed and clearly presented. Here the normal meanings of the words are transformed in service of the kingdom of God and as they identify a sharing in the communion of the blessed and Holy Trinity. That is, they point specifically to the supernatural life of God given to and shared with humankind through Jesus Christ in the Holy Spirit. The emphasis of the New Testament is also on participation in something that is an objective reality rather than on an association with someone.

Theological Use. Perhaps the clearest theological use of koinonia [koinwniva] is in 1 John 1:3-6, where we read that when we walk in the light truly our fellowship is with the Father and with his Son, Jesus Christ and that this relation of grace has profound implications for daily living. For if we say that we have fellowship with God and walk in darkness, we lie! Here the basic meaning of "fellowship" is a real and practical sharing in eternal life with the Father and the Son.

Fellowship, sharing, marriage, and business partnerships go hand in hand. It implies cost and a joining of our lives together to move in the direction that God has called us. This type of closeness is what God had in mind when He brought us into fellowship with Himself and with one another. If we are one in Christ and we agree on the essentials of the faith, how can we say that agreement on non-essentials is NOT a test of FELLOWSHIP in one breath, and in the other breath say that we will NOT COOPERATE in fulfilling the Great Commission with those who do not agree with us on those non-essentials?

To be in fellowship means that we cooperate in God's mission. There are no second class Christians who are allowed to be in churches and give their money, yet are not allowed to participate in mission with the other believers if they are following God. That idea is foreign to the New Testament. Those who are wanting to exclude those who practice, believe in, or advocate a PPL from cooperation in missions and church planting must make their case that those people are heretics or are in deep, unrepentant sin and should be disfellowshiped. Anything less than that is not consistent and shows a lack of understanding of what biblical fellowship means. According to Scripture, the only thing that can bring disfellowship upon someone is blatant, unrepentant sin, or heresy. Other than that, we are expected to forgive one another, major on the majors, and work things out in love. In doing this, we show Jesus to be sent by God and we show the world that we are different and there is a supernatural power at work in us. The world believes that Jesus is real when believers who disagree on some issues, can put those issues aside to work together to accomplish God's purposes.

That is why I believe that the division that we are seeing over PPL is entirely unbiblical. It is why I believe that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 is a brilliant confession of faith in it's silence on this issue. Let's keep tertiary doctrines on the margins of our walk with the Lord and maintain the fellowship that Jesus died for. Let's continue to work together, even though we have some differences in minor points of theology and let's allow love to rule over all.

Why are we unnecessarily dividing the body of Christ? I call upon those who are proposing these restrictive requirements to at least be honest about the division that they are causing and the breaking of fellowship that they advocate. For, without cooperation in mission, fellowship is reduced to sipping punch in the "fellowship" hall. I believe that Jesus died for far more than that.

I pray that the convention in San Antonio from June 11-13 brings some clarity on where our true fellowship lies: In Christ alone. Will you pray with me?

I must be out of my mind for doing this, but I have decided to propose a resolution at the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in San Antonio, TX, June 12-13.  Since I am going to wrap up my magical mystery tour through the labrynthine world of Southern Baptist denominational issues, I figure that I might as well offer something productive instead of just sitting in a convention hall bored out of my mind. So, I decided to participate and I need your help in doing so.

I wanted to wait on this until the final report came back from the Ad Hoc Committee of the IMB BoT. I wanted to TRUST that the Trustees would see their error and do the right thing. It didn't happen. So, this resolution will be specifically in response to the actions of the IMB Board of Trustees adoption of restrictive guidelines that go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message, 2000. But, it is also written to address a larger problem of SBC entity boards behaving in a way that seems to express a lack of accountability to the Convention that owns them. The individual entity boards of trustees are NOT autonomous according to my understanding (See The Relation of the Southern Baptist Convention to Its Entities by Dr. David E. Hankins, and Messengers approve request to NOBTS to adopt sole membership by Michael Foust). Trustees cannot do what they like. They are accountable to the Convention and it seems to me that if we have adopted a consensus statement of faith to instruct our participation in Baptist life, that should be sufficient as a doctrinal guide for the development of policies, practices, and guidelines, especially in relation to ministry personnel decisions, unless otherwise noted. Trustee boards should not, in my opinion, be able to develop their own doctrinal criteria based on novel interpretations of Scripture, without the affirmation of the SBC, to which they must give an account. I thought it worth it to see if the Convention messengers agreed with me.

I am not trying to instruct or micromanage the trustees, per se, but I do think it important to clarify expectations and to express displeasure with their actions. I am probably in way over my head here, but I have a habit of doing that, so why stop now? Here it is:

ON THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE BAPTIST FAITH & MESSAGE 2000 AS A DOCTRINAL GUIDE FOR CONVENTION ENTITIES

                              

WHEREAS, The Baptist Faith & Message, 2000 is the only consensus statement of faith regarding the doctrinal beliefs of Southern Baptists and is therefore our agreed upon doctrinal statement of cooperation; and

                                 

WHEREAS, The entities of the Southern Baptist Convention are the arenas where cooperation practically takes place on a national level; and

                                           

WHEREAS, All entities of the Southern Baptist Convention have adopted the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 as their doctrinal guide; and

                                                    

WHEREAS, The entities are owned solely by the Southern Baptist Convention and are therefore accountable to the Convention; and

                                                

WHEREAS, The addition of further doctrinal requirements and/or restrictions beyond the BF&M2000 for employment by our entities de facto alters our agreed upon doctrinal basis of cooperation without due process or deliberation by the SBC through consultation or amendment to the Baptist Faith & Message; and

                                                       

WHEREAS, The addition of further doctrinal requirements and/or restrictions by the trustee boards of our entities beyond the consensus statement of faith of the SBC has the potential to detrimentally affect the trust, cooperation, and participation of autonomous Southern Baptist churches and individuals with said entities, as well as the solvency of the Cooperative Program; and 

                                     

WHEREAS, The SBC Executive Committee in its February 19-20, 2007 meeting in Nashville, TN declared that it "acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention”; now, therefore, be it

                                                            

RESOLVED,  That the messengers to the Southern Baptist Convention meeting in San Antonio, Texas, June 12-13, 2007, agree with the aforementioned Executive Committee statement and declare that the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 is a sufficient doctrinal guide regarding the establishment of policies, practices, and we would add, guidelines for the entities of the Convention; and be it further

                                                               

RESOLVED, That it is also sufficient to establish the doctrinal parameters that inform the hiring of employees and ministry personnel for SBC entities; and be it further

                                                   

RESOLVED, That we do not desire to see SBC entities go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 by creating additional doctrinal requirements and/or restrictions regarding the establishment of policies, practices, and guidelines in relation to personnel decisions or theological parameters; and be it further 

                                                         

RESOLVED, That if there is any need for further doctrinal requirements or restrictions that go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message 2000 (our only consensus statement of faith), we request that those items be brought before the SBC's Annual Meeting for deliberation and affirmation from a larger representative body of Southern Baptists with warning of the doctrinal change given at the previous year's Annual Meeting.                                                                                            

(Final Edit: After further advice and reflection, I did decide to take out references to the IMB, NAMB, or SWBTS.  People will likely know what I am talking about and there is no need to alienate. I also added in a final "resolved" that spoke to future action along these lines.)

I will leave this open over the weekend and would like to invite feedback from my readers. I will incorporate the best of what you say and duly consider any constructive suggestions, but I will mail it off on Monday. It is interesting to me that the convention is in San Antonio, famously known for The Alamo, where a small group of revolutionaries died to the last man to defend their freedom and autonomy from Spanish rule. I am not comparing myself or this cause to them in any way, but the idea that all of them died makes me chuckle a bit. I am fairly confident that this resolution will either be buried in committee and will never see the floor, or it will be defeated. But, I would rather joyfully go down in flames trying my best to change things, than sit back and later wish I had done more. Please help me out and tell me what you think. I also encourage each one of you, if you are a pastor or church member who plans on going to San Antonio, to write your own resolution and submit it if you feel strongly about this.

For the rest of you that don't care one bit about all of this (and I care more out of a sense of responsibility than real passion at this point): I'll be back to writing about other things next week.

The IMB Trustee meeting in Kansas City ended with the report from the Ad Hoc Committee studying the issues of Private Prayer Language and Baptism. Wade Burleson was there and reports on it HERE. Here is the report in it's entirety:

Report of the Mission Personnel Ad Hoc Committee
May 2007

In March of 2006 an ad hoc committee of Mission Personnel Committee received the charge to revisit the approved board policy on tongues and prayer language and the approved board guideline on baptism, both adopted in November 2005. The ad hoc committee has met over the past year during board meetings as well as a two-day special meeting to consider the vast amount of material gathered from leaders, scholars, and pastors across our denomination. The committee solicited this material in an attempt to be faithful to its task. The committee has also spent considerable time praying, fasting, and seeking God’s heart on these issues. The committee has no desire to create further controversy. Rather, our desire is to bring this study to completion and allow the board to maintain its focus upon our world mission task.

The ad hoc committee has concluded that even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates.

Therefore, we recommend that the full board adopt the following two guidelines to replace Policy 200-15 and Guideline 200-3a. The Mission Personnel Committee approved this recommendation on March 20, 2007 by a three-fourths majority.

Guideline on Tongues and Prayer Language

GLOSSOLALIA

1. The New Testament speaks of a gift of glossolalia that generally is considered to be a legitimate language.
2. The New Testament expression of glossolalia as a gift had specific uses and conditions for its exercise in public worship.
3. In terms of worship practices, if glossolalia is a public part of the candidate’s current practice and it does not fall within the definitions of Parts 1 & 2 above, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

PRAYER LANGUAGE

1. Any spiritual experience must be tested by Scriptures.
2. New Testament teaching is that prayer is to be made with understanding.
3. The board is not persuaded that ecstatic utterance as a prayer language is a valid expression of the New Testament teaching on prayer.
4. Therefore, if an “ecstatic utterances as a prayer language” is a part of the candidate’s current practice, the candidate has eliminated himself or herself from being a representative of the IMB of the SBC.

APPLICATION

1. This guideline is not retroactive.
2. Any exceptions to the above guideline must be reviewed by the staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

Proposed Guideline on Baptism

THAT each candidate’s baptismal experience be examined, during the application process, in light of the Baptist Faith and Message statement and the points listed below:

Christian baptism is the immersion of a believer in water in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit. It is an act of obedience symbolizing the believer's faith in a crucified, buried, and risen Saviour, the believer's death to sin, the burial of the old life, and the resurrection to walk in newness of life in Christ Jesus. It is a testimony to his faith in the final resurrection of the dead. Being a church ordinance, it is prerequisite to the privileges of church membership and to the Lord's Supper. 2000 Baptist Faith and Message, Article VII


POINTS TO BE COVERED DURING THE APPOINTMENT PROCESS

1. The individual

a. Believer’s baptism by immersion.
Baptism by immersion follows salvation.
b. Baptism is symbolic, picturing the experience of the believer’s death to sin and resurrection to a new life in Christ.
Baptism does not regenerate.

2. The Church

a. Baptism is a church ordinance.

Baptism must take place under the authority of a local church that practices believer’s baptism alone, embraces the doctrine of the security of a believer’s salvation and does not view baptism as sacramental, regenerative or essential to salvation.

b. A candidate who has not been baptized under the authority of a local church which meets the standards listed above is expected to request baptism in his or her Southern Bapist church.

3. The Candidate

The candidate is responsible for requesting their home church to assist them in meeting this doctrinal commitment to the above points.


4. The Consultant

While the candidate consultant should have a working knowledge of many denominational groups, he or she is not expected to investigate every church.

APPLICATION

1. The guideline is not retroactive.
Any exception to the above guideline must be reviewed by staff and the Mission Personnel Committee.

(End of Ad Hoc Committee Report)

(From Me)  I am glad that the policies were degraded to guidelines. It shows a softening of sorts. But, after a year and a half of controversy in all levels of Convention life, it appears that a desire to be non-controversial will probably sow even more confusion as to what is meant. I still do not know how candidates who have a prayer language or were baptized by immersion in a church that does not teach eternal security should see this. And, I really do not expect any clarification. Instead of a definintive answer one way or another, we were given even more confusion. I do not want to be critical as I want to respect the men who worked hard on this, but I really have no idea what I am supposed to do with this as a pastor.

The statement was made that there "even though field related data and consultation with regional leaders has not indicated a systemic problem with charismatic practices among field personnel, the rapid spread of neo-pentecostalism and its pressure exacted on the new churches in various regions of the world warrants a concern for the clear Baptist identity of our missionary candidates. Furthermore, the diversity of denominational backgrounds among missionary candidates requires a clear baptism guideline to guide the work of our candidate consultants as they consider the qualifications of candidates."  It sounds to me like the old policies were working. It sounds like they finally admit that the new "policies" were not adopted because of any problems on the field, but rather because of fear of what MIGHT happen. This is not leadership. This remains an attempt to push a narrow theological position in through the back door of SBC life by going beyond the Baptist Faith and Message2000. And, if people who do not toe the line in these two areas are "eliminated," then how is it a guideline? It seems that the language is still very strong, but it's application is open to interpretation. I really don't know what to make of it, except that the Board of Trustees wanted to implement the same policies but take away ammunition from it's critics by saying, "We softened it. It is just a guideline." Sorry. I'm not buying it.

But, whatever. I can truly say that I don't care anymore. I really do not even have much of an emotional response to this, apart from "Huh?" and "Wha?"  I really have no idea what this means. But, they can do what they want, I guess. I have said my peace and it is time to shake the dust. I hope that things work out for the IMB and that God continues to bless that organization. As for me, I will remain Southern Baptist and continue to participate when and where I have something to offer and feel that cooperation is beneficial for the work of the Kingdom. Beyond that, it is time to move on.

I will write another post on this either later today or tomorrow to provide some further insights after I have had some time to digest all of this. I am already having other thoughts. And, I will be at the Convention in San Antonio in June to mark an end to my foray into denominational life, so I'll provide some insights into that experience as well. But, other than that, I am ready to put this bewildering experience behind me.

Last week at the Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit, I engaged in a bit of argumentation that is a bit unusual regarding the continuation of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but it has come to make perfect sense to me.  In 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12:4-8, Paul tells us that we are all one body, the body of Christ. The body is made up of different parts and each part needs the other. The eye cannot say to the hand, "I don't need you!" and the head cannot say to the feet, "I don't need you!" (1 Cor. 12:21).  In both passages, the idea of the body is related to the discussion on spiritual gifts. Clearly from context we can conclude that the members of the body operate as the one body of Christ when each member uses his/her spiritual gifts. The body analogy does not make any sense apart from this perspective if we consider the context.

Now, if I lose my eye, hand, or leg, I am considered deformed, right? I am considered to be incomplete and not able to fully do what I was created/intended to do. If I lose my leg, I might still be able to live, breathe, think, make jokes, cook, and drive a car, but I will not be able to run as fast as before, climb mountains as well as before, or be as strong. When attempting those things, I have to compensate by being stronger in other areas, or I just sit around and remember the good old days when I used to run fast.

God has given us spiritual gifts to make us strong and he intends that we keep them till the end. "What then shall we say, brothers? When you come together, everyone has a hymn, or a word of instruction, a revelation, a tongue or an interpretation. All of these must be done for the strengthening of the church" (1 Cor. 14:26). That sounds like a command to me. What about 1 Corinthians 1:7?  "Therefore you do not lack any spiritual gift as you eagerly wait for our Lord Jesus Christ to be revealed. He will keep you strong to the end, so that you will be blameless on the day of our Lord Jesus Christ."  (See Also Ephesians 4:11-16). We know from 1 Corinthians 12-14 that the main purpose of spiritual gifts is for the building up of the church.   So, doesn't it make sense that a lack of spiritual gifts would result in a weakened church? Hmmm. What is the state of the church today? Strong or weak? Could it be that we have neglected or abandoned some of the gifts that God has given us in favor of others that are more presentable and seem easier to manage?

Again, if I am missing part of my body, I am considered deformed or unhealthy. It doesn't mean that I am worthless or that I am loved less. It just means that I am not all I could have been if I had been healthy. I am blind in my right eye, and because of that, I was not able to serve in the military like I wanted to. I also have trouble with baseball, ping pong, tennis, raquetball, and night driving because I have no depth perception. I can't see a 3-D movie. Now, I have compensated and can still play those sports and drive at night, but it isn't what it could have been. I am aware of my limitations. I don't think less of myself and I don't think that God loves me less. But, I sure wish I had that eye. One day, I will.

Could the church be that way? Could we have lost some of the gifts that God wanted us to have to be strong? Except, He didn't take them away, we just quit using them and they atrophied. Or, we ran off the people who tried to use their gifts in certain ways because it didn't make sense to those who were not gifted that way. This goes way beyond tongues, miracles, and healings. It goes to the very heart of church life in the West. If all of the people with certain gift are run off, or if they are told that their gifts cannot function or don't exist, then what are you left with?  It kind of becomes like a half put togehter Mr. Potato Head doll. You have an eye here, an ear there, a mouth and an arm. But, it doesn't quite work correctly.

So, where could we have overcompensated? One area is in an overemphasis on the pastoral and preaching offices/gifts in church life. In some churches, everything seems to revolve around the pastor. I fully believe in Biblical church leadership, but I don't see the pastor being the only one in the church who is supposed to function the way we often see. Yet, he sometimes overfunctions and the result is a weak church. "Each one" is to contribute and bring something, remember?

Not all gifts are for the purpose of building up the church, at least directly. 1 Cor. 14:12 says, "Since you are eager to have spiritual gifts, try to excel in gifts that build up the church."  Paul is clearly saying here, I believe, that there are gifts that do not build up the church, otherwise he would not have shown the contrast here. Some build up the user, while others build up the church. The gifts that build up the church are greater (1 Cor. 12:31; 14:1-5), but it does not mean that the lesser gifts are not important as well. Some have said that gifts like speaking in tongues are invalid because they do not build up the church, but instead, they seem to build up/strengthen the user of the gift (1 Cor. 14:4).  Is it wrong to build yourself up in your faith and become strong in the Lord? The Bible doesn't seem to think so (Jude 20; Colossians 2:6-7; Ephesians 6:10).  Don't things like prayer, Bible study, fellowship, and ministry make us strong in the Lord? Then, should it not also stand to reason that exercising our spiritual gifts makes us strong as well? If I am strong, then the whole Body is strong. When I work out my biceps, it makes them strong, but it also strengthens and equips my whole body. So, personal strength is not mutually exclusive of corporate strength, but rather, it aids it.

Is the SBC headed for atrophy? What about our local churches? Will we run off people who exercise gifts of the Spirit that God tells us not to forbid (1 Cor. 14:39)?  Will we put more stock in our traditions and church histories than the clear reading of the text of Scripture? Will we continue to hobble along, overemphasing some parts of the body because we have cut off other parts that were given for the common good (1 Cor. 12:7)?  Just because we don't understand how all of this works does not mean that we should insult the grace of our Heavenly Father who graciously gives us all things. Some say that He gave gifts to the church when she was born, only to remove those gifts within a few decades. I think that Scripture says that without all of the gifts the church would be deformed, crippled, and weakened. I believe that it also says that God, the great gift giver, does not change and is not arbitrary:

16Don't be deceived, my dear brothers. 17Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows. 18He chose to give us birth through the word of truth, that we might be a kind of firstfruits of all he created. - James 1:16-18.

We will be taking a HUGE step toward answering some of these questions this week with the report from the IMB Ad Hoc Committees regarding their review of the new private prayer language and baptism policies (Wade Burleson writes about this upcoming meeting HERE). I pray that these unbiblical policies will be overturned. I pray for a day when we will embrace what God has given us without prejudice. I have written and prayed for the past year and a half to see these policies overturned because I believe that they hamper the Body of Christ and keep her from being all that God intended for her to be. I am a pastor of the church of Jesus Christ, not just my local church, and my desire is to see all of God's people strong and fit for works of service. I pray that we will walk on two legs, with two strong arms, and with a strong heart beating within us empowered by the Holy Spirit and fulfilling God's purpose for us in this generation. This current struggle within the IMB and SBC is soon to be over for all intents and purposes. But, the struggle for the advancement of the Kingdom, the making of disciples, and the strengthening of the church will not end until Jesus returns. May we take the lessons that we have learned here and use them as fuel and sustenance for greater battles with the Real Enemy of our Souls as time unfolds. And, no matter what happens, may God be glorified.

Grace and Peace

The Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit was a wonderful experience. I want to join with others in saying that Dwight McKissic, the pastor of Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX, is a prince among men. He was generous, gracious, and humble at all times. Regularly during our conversations, he would ask me what I thought about things.  That was amazing to me and very humbling as well. Most pastors of 2,000 member churches that I have met are wonderful men, but they are not often interested in the opinions of a 32 year old pastor of a 250 member church. That's the SBC that I've known, anyway.  We base so much on rank, influence, and what someone can do for us, or how interesting they are to us. Rarely, do we look for the value in each person. I really feel that Pastor McKissic does that and he was really an example to me. His assistant, Veronica Griffin, did an incredible job as the conference organizer. She really knew what she was doing, no doubt. Thanks Veronica for all of your hard work!

Overall, the conference went well. I especially enjoyed spending time with Dr. Sam Storms. He is a brilliant man with a passion for God and His glory. I was especially encouraged by his message on Saturday night where he laid out a perspective regarding the idea that Jesus ministered and lived by the same Holy Spirit that we do. The power that was in Jesus in now in us. The implications that he drew from that were remarkable.

I enjoyed meeting and spending some time with those who were representing a semi-cessationist view, Bart Barber and Robin Foster. Robin has a very sincere and gentle heart and it is obvious that He loves the Lord and seeks to honor Jesus in everthing he does. Bart is very intelligent and did a great job with his presentation. He and I have vigorously debated issues in the blogosphere over the past 6 months or so, but those debates have always been respectful, enjoyable, and challenging. He is no less in person. I am sharper theologically for having tangled with Bart and I am grateful that both he and Robin are in the SBC.

I also spent time with Wade Burleson, Ben Cole, Art Rogers, Jason Epps, Daniel Brymer, Bob Cleveland, Paul Burleson, Debbie Kaufman, Alyce Lee, Boyd Luter, and Dorcas Hawker. Dorcas has the best notes anywhere on the conference, if you want to read them HERE, HERE, and HERE).  UPDATE: She also has a synopsis of ALL the relevant posts and news articles HERE. Check it out. Wade has a great synopsis of the Sunday worship service HERE and a summary of Dr. Sam Storms Saturday morning presentation HERE.  I know that I missed some people, but it was a wonderful time.

I was pleased with my presentation on "Defining and Defending Continualism," and am proud to say that my presentation was the shortest in the entire conference at 35 minutes (members of my church will be shocked to hear that, I know!).  I had prepared for a 50 minute presentation, but Pastor McKissic leaned back and asked if I could cut it to a half hour because we were running short of time and things had gotten backed up. Ugh. The previous speakers had all gone a bit over, and while individually it wasn't a major deal, collectively it made the difference. I definitely wanted to be respectful of his instructions, so I started scrambling to figure out what I needed to jettison. My presentation would not make sense if sections were missing, I thought, so I decided to stick with the whole thing, but not elaborate much on each point - just let it speak for itself. I think that I was to the point, but I know that there is much more that I would have like to have said and I am sure that I left some with confusion. So, even though it felt hurried and incomplete, I trust that God used it to do His work.

My thoughts on this subject have been enumerated on my Holy Spirit posts in November, 2006 (click on Holy Spirit in Categories and move down - 4 posts). But, a couple of things seemed to jump out:

1. Dr. Sam Storms and I were asked to defend the Continualist position. Bart Barber and Robin Foster were asked to defend the Cessationist position. Unless they got more detailed instructions that we got, the results were very interesting. Without collusion, Dr. Storms and I both defended the idea that all of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit are for today, including speaking in tongues. We each talked about tongues, but they were minor parts of our presentations, as they should be. Bart and Robin both focused on tongues almost exclusively. Again, they might have had more detailed instructions, but I wonder if they did that because the main issue for many cessationists or semi-cessationists is tongues? To me, tongues are not the big deal - they are just one of many gifts.  For others, including the trustees of the IMB, it seems to be THE issue. That was educational.
2. Some people expressed surprise at my statements that no one got saved from hearing anyone speak in tongues in the Book of Acts. No one. Anywhere. In Acts 2, the 120 spoke in tongues giving praise to God, and the people heard them in their own language. The result was confusion as they asked, "What does this mean?" Peter explained it for them by clearly preaching the gospel and 3,000 were added to their number that day. In Acts 10, those in Cornelius' house spoke in tongues AFTER they heard the gospel and the Holy Spirit fell upon them. If these were intelligible human languages given for evangelisitc purposes, then what language was it? They were all Samaritans there, and at that point, they were all believers. In Acts 19, the disciples of John the Baptist, likewise, spoke in tongues and prophesied AFTER the Holy Spirit came upon them. Again, they all spoke the same language and had already believed. No evangelistic emphasis there. And, if they spoke in other human languages, what were they? Was there an interpreter? What was the purpose, since they all already spoke the same language?

I imagine that I'll go to my grave before I get satisfactory answers to those questions. In my opinion, whether your argument is from history or from theological gymnastics based on some Bible verses, you do not have much of a leg to stand upon if you stand in the cessationist quicksand. I had everyone stand up at the beginning and I read around 15 passages to them recounting God's miraculous works in the New Testament. I could have read way more, as there are over 150 passages in Scripture showing us the miraculous works of God through His people. Are we to believe that this work is over? If so, I don't think that I could believe anything that Scripture says about God. Perhaps some can, but that would basically be impossible for me. It is becoming that closely connected to the character and work of the Lord for me. But, while it is a big deal to me, I continue to reiterate that it is not something that I want to divide over. I fully respect and desire to work with any other believers who have different positions than I do on this issue. There are more important things that we should be focusing on!

Well, as I stated before, the conference was well done. I didn't agree with everything that every speaker said (on both sides), but I did agree with the gracious spirit of all who participated. May we have many more days like these.

UPDATE:  Robin Foster has put much of his paper online HERE. We engaged in healthy discussion over his points. Jason Epps debated Robin's paper HERE point by point. He provided an excellent analysis of the subjunctive mood of the Greek that Robin uses to buttress his point in the comment section of his post. It is definitely worth checking out for those who are interested in the minutae of this debate. Excellent.

Disclaimer: A couple of months ago I said that I was not going to write anymore about Baptist issues and a reader of mine called me on it in the comments section of my last post. I do want to add a few caveats, lest anyone think that I am back in the SBC stuff. I am going to write about the upcoming Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit that I am speaking at this weekend in Texas because it has to do with God, theology, missions, and God's on going work in the world. There happens to be a Baptist controversy going on right now over those things, but those issues by themselves are important enough to write about and are of interest to me. I will also give commentary on the upcoming reports from the IMB Ad Hoc Committee regarding their review of the prayer language and baptism policies due out in May because that will basically end debate on the issue one way or another. It will be over at that point. For closure, I also plan on attending the SBC Annual Meeting in San Antonio in June - unless God says otherwise, it will likely be my last. I'll write about that because it will be a personal experience in religious something or other. My involvement in all of this stuff started in December 2005 and I want to see it through. The invovlement will end in June and be intentional until then. So, with that said, let's get on to the actual post . . .

As I think about whether or not I should begin to prepare for the upcoming Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit (kidding), I've also been thinking a lot about the barriers to proper communication on this issue. I'd like some help, if you have a moment. Concerning the continuation of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, like healing, speaking in tongues, prophecy, miracles, etc., what has been your experience? What has shaped you view on the issue? Are you mainly reactive to abuses, or have you done actual biblical study on your own? Why do you believe what you believe?

I really am interested in what people think and it would be quite helpful. Personally, I think that most people who believe that the gifts are not for today either:

1. Were taught that by someone influential in their life
2. Had a bad experience with abuses and unbiblical extremes
3. Heard about a bad experience with abuses and unbiblical extremes
4. Watched TBN for 15 minutes
5. Have never experienced or seen spiritual gifts in operation so they doubt their existence
6. Other?

How many really come to a cessationist position because of careful biblical study? I know that people do, and I am not dismissing that. I would just like to understand better what passages really informed you that God no longer works that way. How does the Bible support that position? Or, can you honestly say that fear of the abuses and excesses of others have pushed you into a position where you are not open or look skeptically upon such things?

If I get a really good answer (it can be from either position) and I end up using it (minus your name) in my talk on "Defining and Defending the Continualist Position," I'll send you a copy of Paul, the Spirit, and the People of God by Gordon Fee. It is a very readable and excellent book on the role of the Holy Spirit in Paul's letters and the way that Paul saw Him operating in the church. Really good stuff! It is a scaled down version of God's Empowering Presence, which is Fee's magnum opus that is also great but unapproachable for most readers. Plus, it's a lot more expensive. So, help me out and I'll send you a free book!

So, I thought I'd start the week off with some thoughts concerning the upcoming Baptist Conference on the Holy Spirit at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX. I've been asked to take part in a panel discussion on Saturday morning. I am also speaking at 3pm on the topic "Defining and Defending the Continualist Position." I've planned and led quite a few conferences, and my great hope in my participation in this one is that I'll be speaking at 3pm on Saturday afternoon. Thankfully, that time period takes the pressure off greatly.  Generally, only family members, the church custodian, and some guys moving chairs and tables in the back are around at that time, as most have retired to their homes and hotels for a much needed afternoon nap before returning in the evening. Those left in the room usually begin to sink down in their seats and drop their heads in an attitude of prayer that goes on for some time. If not careful, some have been known to actually fall out of their chairs as though they were slain, charismatic style. The 3pm crowd is quite pious, actually.

I'm thinking I really should blow the dust off the old family Bible, crack it open and prepare for this, since I will be surrounded by incredibly qualified people with academic degrees and what not. But, then I thought, why not just wing it?  Since many in the SBC consider those who believe in the continuation of miraculous Spiritual Gifts to base their sketchy theology on experience alone, I thought I'd just show up and see what happens. I'm sure it will turn out all right in the end. I have about 45 minutes to speak, I think, so I thought I'd show a video of people speaking in tongues to each other without interpretation for about 20 minutes. I could get some clips of all types of charismatic phenomena, like people barking, rolling around, and running around the church. It could be entitled, "Coming to a Baptist Church Near You If Continualists Get Their Way!"  Then, since we are experience based after all, I could divide the room up into small groups and ask people to share their feelings about the video. Was it scary? How did it make them feel? After that, I'd blast them for not having enough faith or something. I'm still working on my closing, but I don't want to put TOO much thought into, remember? Spontaneity and all.

In case you didn't realize, this was an experiment in satire. I'm not trying to insult your intelligence by stating the obvious, but I have read comments on some blogs that would lead me to believe that nuance is lost on more than a few. In all seriousness, I am VERY excited about this coming weekend. I feel that it will provide a much needed forum to discuss and debate one of the central controversies in Baptist life today. I am incredibly honored to be speaking and am very excited about the 3pm time, because I will get to go last, in a sense, and I will be able to respond to the statements made by the cessationist speakers before me, Bart Barber and Robin Foster. I am preparing as best I can, and do not plan to just wing it, even though I am sure to be dwarfed by the theological and mental heavyweights that will be my counterparts. So, I appreciate your prayers this week as I get ready for what should be a great experience.

I've been interested in the power of networks and network theory for some time now (see a paper I wrote a couple of years ago called Emerging Network Theory). I believe that society is restructuring to a network based, decentralized organizational system as opposed to a hierachical, centralized organizational system. With the speed of information sharing through the internet, the ease of global travel, and the connecting of people with ideas from all over the world, we are truly stepping into a flat world, as Thomas Friedman tells us. This move to an interconnected world where barriers between people groups and nation states are falling is called Globalization.

Recently, I have been reading two books that have helped to articulate some of the things that I have been observing and sensing intuitively. The first is Glocalization (global + local) by Bob Roberts. I spoke about this book last month HERE. Basically, he takes Friedmans' thesis regarding the flattening of the world through interconnectivity and applies it to the on going, global mission of the church. He uses the fact that each one of us has the ability to be a Kingdom influence on our domains of life through local and global interaction as a wake up call to the church to step into the 21st century and engage the opportunities God has put before us. While fairly simplistic at times, it is an excellent primer on this concept.

The second book is The Starfish and the Spider: The Unstoppable Power of Leaderless Organizations, by Brafmon and Beckstrom. They use the analogy of a Starfish as a decentralized organization (you can cut off the leg of a starfish and a whole new starfish will regenerate), compared to a spider, which looks like a starfish, but if you cut off the head, the whole organism dies. They say that we are headed into a time where decentralized, organic organizations are becoming more effective and are basically unstoppable. Here are the characteristics of a starfish movement compared to a spider organization, which is basically the opposite of these things:

Yesterday, I said that I was almost finished writing about SBC related topics. Well, I wrote one day too soon, I am afraid. My caveats were that I would respond to the IMB ad hoc committee reports on private prayer language and baptism in either March or May, when they met, and the SBC Annual Meeting in June. I need to add another exception, that to me is incredibly good news. I pray that this statement of the SBC Executive Committee regarding going beyond the Baptist Faith & Message positively impacts the IMB meetings later this Spring and the SBC Annual Meeting as well. This has been my issue and it is not personal to anyone in any way, rather, it absolutely deals with theological, missiological, and cooperative issues. The Executive Committee of the SBC basically said that they did not think it wise for SBC entities to draft theological and doctrinal positions that go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message. Wonderful! That is what I was saying HERE, HERE, and HERE. Here is the article from Baptist Press:

NASHVILLE, Tenn. (BP)—Characterizing the Baptist Faith and Message as a sufficient guide for trustees of Southern Baptist Convention entities, the SBC Executive Committee, during it Feb. 19-20 meeting in Nashville, Tenn., affirmed both the SBC’s trustee system of governance and its confession of faith, in effect suggesting that trustees do well when guided by the BF&M in crafting doctrinal policies.

The Executive Committee adopted its statement under an SBC bylaw requiring that the convention’s entities respond to motions referred to them from the preceding SBC annual meeting.

The Executive Committee, in response to a BF&M-related motion at last year’s annual meeting in Greensboro, N.C., stated that it “acknowledges the Baptist Faith and Message is not a creed, or a complete statement of our faith, nor final or infallible, nevertheless we further acknowledge that it is the only consensus statement of doctrinal beliefs approved by the Southern Baptist Convention and as such is sufficient in its current form to guide trustees in their establishment of policies and practices of entities of the Convention.”

The one-paragraph statement was adopted in response to a motion by Texas messenger Boyd Luter during the ’06 annual meeting. Luter’s motion called for a vote by messengers on any “doctrinal position or practical policy” adopted by an SBC entity “which goes beyond, or seeks to explain the explicit wording of the duly constituted authoritative language of the Baptist Faith and Message 2000.”

Such a vote, according to Luter’s motion, would become an amendment to the BF&M. If the vote failed, the entity’s “wording/policy would thereby be rescinded.”

During the Executive Committee's Administrative Subcommittee meeting, Southern Baptist Convention President Frank Page spoke in favor of the Executive Committee statement, saying it would give guidance to SBC entities and to all Southern Baptists while not having an undue influence on them. Page added that it will help the convention stay focused on evangelism and missions. Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President R. Albert Mohler Jr. and Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission President Richard Land also spoke in favor of the recommendation.

Luter’s motion came several months after trustees of the International Mission Board adopted a new policy disqualifying missionary candidates who practice a private prayer language and a new guideline that missionary candidates must be baptized in a church that practices believer’s baptism exclusively, embraces the doctrine of security of the believer and rejects a regenerative view of baptism.

IMB trustees, in responding to an SBC-referred motion during their Jan. 29-31 meeting in California, had stated that “(w)hile the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board.”

Hopefully, this will be sufficient, and the IMB Board of Trustees will heed the direction of the Executive Committee. Many prayers will be answered if they do. All that I ever wanted was for things to go back to the way they were before the two IMB policies were drafted. If this is the first step along the road of the rescinding of the IMB polices, I say, Amen! Praise the Lord!

Now, I will begin normal blogging again on issues that reflect where God is working and moving. But, I must say, that He seems to be working here. For that I am very glad!

Update: Thom Rainer, president of Lifeway nicely sums up the thrust of my post HERE , if you want to know where I am going with this.

According to a recent article in the Florida Baptist Witness, there is apparently a growing charismatic movement in the SBC that would seek to have the SBC become charismatic. I got that from the writings of James Smith and his interview with Paige Patterson. I wrote a very long post disputing that premise point by point, but I am not going to post it because I was angry and frustrated with the falsehoods that I continue to see in print. But, I am just going to say that Patterson and Smith are wrong. There is no charismatic movement in the SBC. They are wrong about the place that history should have in the way we read the Bible as well. Scripture should be our guide. All that anyone wants is for missionaries to not be eliminated because they have a private prayer language and for our entities to not go beyond the Baptist Faith & Message. That is all that Dwight McKissic, who was extensively addressed in that article, wants. I know because I called him and asked him. He only wants liberty for those who have different views on this non-essential doctrine. It is really exhausting and discouraging when you write, work, and pray for things to just return to how they were before some new, arbitrary policies were written up, and you have other people make a case that you are trying to bring about a charismatic movement. If one started, I wouldn’t join it. I want to follow Jesus holistically, and not some doctrines or teachings that lift out certain aspects of the Christian life. But, we are where we are not because a bunch of charismatics (which I am not) tried to bring their doctrine into the SBC. We are where we are because some other people wanted to push folks out who were a little different from them. That is wrong, in my opinion, and it should be opposed.

We've been going through T.W. Hunt's study, The Mind of Christ on Wednesday nights and it has been incredible. It is a very clear study on how to put on the Mind of Christ, take thoughts captive, and reflect the character of Christ in all that we think, say, and do. Many are being confronted with wrong motives, struggling relationships, and bubbling pride. Often, it is hard to see the root causes of many of our problems, and it is easier to gloss over them through rationalizations and excuses. We don't think that our pain or struggles really has anything to do with US, and self righteousness can easily replace Christ's righteousness and dependence upon Him as our life.

A couple of weeks ago, as part of our study, we ran across this gem of a passage in James 4:1-3:

What causes fights and quarrels among you? Don't they come from the desires that battle within you? You want something but don't get it. You kill and covet, but you cannot have what you want. You quarrel and fight. You do not have because you do not ask God. When you ask, you do not receive, because you ask with wrong motives, that you may spend what you get on your pleasures.

That passage hit me like a ton of bricks. When I fight and quarrel with others, it has nothing to do with them, but it has everything to do with me. You can disagree with people and strive for justice in unjust situations. That is Godly. But, much of the strife in our lives has to do with us wanting to get our own way or to get something out of someone that is better left alone. It is motivated by our own desires. We want respect from others, so any slight is a provocation to battle and hard feelings. We want to get our way, so anytime someone supersedes us, we lash out. Our whole culture is built upon pride and arrogance, and those same attitudes often characterize our churches and denominations. But, it takes two to fight. Jesus did not succumb to this sin, because the world had no hold on Him. He strictly looked to the Father for His identity and sufficiency. He did not look to man for anything, so He had no reason to fight for respect, position, or to get His way. He entrusted Himself to God.

How many times have you been hurt by someone and then lashed out? What were you fighting for? Love? Respect? Position? To protect yourself? If we would take those desires to God instead of letting them battle within us, how much more peace would we have? What do we gain from fighting for victory over others? Does it make our relationships better? Our marriages? Our churches and families? What if we gave those situations to God and looked to Him and asked Him to meet our needs? What if when we were hurt or overlooked we brought our pain and rejection to God who bore it upon the Cross? We would be healed and filled with peace and power enough to bless those who curse us! We might actually begin to live out the Sermon on the Mount.

I know that I have written a lot about SBC issues the past week or so. But, the core of the problems that I have been talking about is relational. If we really knew each other, we could trust one another, even with some differences. If it were possible to sit down and talk to one another without trying to get our way, we might be able to hear from the Lord on issues. But, we all want our way. We grasp power and use it as we see fit. The Word of God no longer speaks authoritatively because we rationalize our actions and declare that we are in the right. At the end of the day, it is our selfishness that guides us, rather than genuine care for others or fidelity to Scripture and the Holy Spirit. The same problems pervade our churches, homes, and communities.

Why do we argue, fuss, and fight? Because of the desires that rage with each of US! My desires. Your desires. We must submit these to the Lord and allow Him to be preeminent. We must surrender to Him and ask Him to move and work as He sees fit. This doesn't mean that we should not stand up for what is right, whether that be personally or communally, but it does mean that we should always submit our desires to the Lord in every situation. Not our will, but His will be done. If He is truly sufficient in our lives, then why are we always looking to other people or things to meet our needs?

Les Puryear, on Bart Barber's blog made the most clear statement that I have yet read regarding the current disagreement with the IMB that I have been writing about so much lately. I had to reprint it here:

The BFM2000 is a statement of what the SBC believes. To go beyond that statement is to go beyond what the SBC has agreed is what they believe.

Since our commonly held beliefs are part of BFM2000, then the intention of leaving out statements on things like tongues, alcohol, etc., is to allow freedom on that doctrine. If the SBC intends freedom on that doctrine, then why should an agency of the SBC autonomously decide to override that freedom? I don't think they should.

If the SBC believes that tongues should not be practiced, then our statement should say so. Otherwise, freedom is assumed. That freedom should not be negated by any small group of people, i.e., the BoTs, without bringing it before the entire convention.

Well, Les said in just a few words what I have spent many trying to say. I completely agree. If the SBC had wanted to address this issue, they would have. Since they haven't, we can assume that freedom is allowed. If they want to address it, they can through the Baptist Faith & Message. Wow. That's so clear it makes you wonder what all the argument is about, doesn't it. Way to go, Les!

Tommorrow, I plan to write about something else. I promise!

The obvious answer to that question is a resounding, "Yes!" and it is the person and work of Jesus Christ and His gospel. But, I am wondering if we will appeal to Him or our own pet doctrines and prejudices. Since my post the other day on relativism in the SBC, I have become more and more concerned that the IMB Trustees are leading us down a very dangerous path. I engaged in a debate yesterday on Bart Barber's blog on this issue. You can read my comments and the debate starting half way down on THIS POST. 

Here is my concern:  I feel that the leadership of the Conservative Resurgence has engaged in an abuse of power by going beyond their mandate to restore the SBC to a conservative biblical footing. We elected presidents and trustees to make sure that we, as a convention, held to the doctrine of inerrancy and a conservative biblical interpretation. They did that. But, we did not give them carte blanche authority to go beyond the Baptist Faith and Message 2000 in any way that they see fit. I've been told that the Boards of Trustees over each of our entities are autonomous and they can do what they like, doctrinally speaking. Basically, the only recourse we have is to elect new trustees. But, is there no governance or direction from the SBC to the trustees on how they are to proceed? Is our agreed upon confession of faith not sufficient as a measure of doctrinal accountability? If we are talking about removing missionaries and SBC employees it is sufficient. If we are talking about limiting the power of our trustees to make unilateral decisions regarding doctrinal parameters, it is not sufficient. I do not see how you can logically have it both ways, but that is where we find ourselves.

I have read arguments that bring up the fact that Southern Seminary uses the Abstracts as a governing theological document, in addition to the Baptist Faith & Message. While I would prefer that all of our seminaries use the BF&M as their doctrinal statement and stick to that, I can deal with a seminary going in a different direction (see SWBTS). I do not agree with it, but I can continue to cooperate with the SBC, even if that happens. You see, we have six seminaries and there is bound to be one that has a different slant theolgically and is more mainstream evangelical (see my alma mater, Golden Gate, for example). If you don't like SWBTS or Southern, then go to Golden Gate or New Orleans.

But, there is only ONE foreign missions sending agency of the SBC: The International Mission Board (IMB). If you are shut out by the actions of the Board of Trustees as they lead the IMB into becoming a rogue agency in the SBC, you have no alternatives. You are forced to either not participate in international missions, or you have to find another way. Those are the only two options left you by the IMB Board of Trustees. That is why it is so important that the IMB, of all of our agencies, stick strictly to the Baptist Faith and Message as our basis for cooperation. Even NAMB has more latitude here, because any U.S. church can engage in domestic missions easily by picking up the phone and contacting local churches, associations, and state conventions. Or, you can just move. Internationally, we are forced to go through the IMB. Therefore, closing the door through restrictive theological issues is even more dangerous.

So, what about the Cooperative Program? Last year in Greensboro, Southern Baptists overwhelmingly elected Frank Page as president of the SBC. They did this because, of the three candidates, his church supported the Cooperative Program most effectively. Many said that it was a referendum on the primacy of the Cooperative Program in Baptist life.

Question: Does statement #4 by the IMB BoT directly do damage to the future of the Cooperative Program? Why would churches give money to an organization (the IMB) that sets it's own doctrinal parameters and is unresponsive to calls to be consistent with our statement of faith, the BF&M, that they themselves have used as an instrument of doctrinal accountability in regard to their own missionaries? Does the IMB belong to the trustees or to the SBC? Of course, it should belong to the Lord, but I don't see where elected trustees should have the right to set limiting doctrinal positions that go beyond the statement of faith that has been approved by a majority of baptists. If they continue down this road, I do not see how churches who disagree with them on this MAJOR issue can continue to, in good conscience, give money to this organization. I say this with great sorrow because I have many friends who are IMB missionaries and they are doing GREAT work. But, if you cannot trust the theological direction of the organization, and if there is no ability to call them back to our agreed upon statement of faith, then I do not see how you can continue to travel together in regard to cooperation in missions.

I do not think that global missions belongs to parachurch organizations or missions sending agencies. Global missions is an assignment given by God to the local church and to each Christian. It is something that we are to be intimately involved with. We are not to just send our money and let others do it for us. We are to go and send ourselves. Southern Baptists have set up the IMB to assist the churches in doing just that. But, when they tell the churches that they know better what kind of missionaries can and should be sent, they no longer serve the churches in the task of global evangelization, but they expect the churches to serve them. They become the gatekeepers. I have no problem with that, especially in areas of expertise, as long as they are operating within the mandate that the churches give them, i.e., the BF&M. When they supersede that mandate and do not heed calls to return to our agreed upon basis, they are the ones who are choosing to walk in a different direction. They are the ones who are sowing disunity and bringing discord.

I firmly believe that the IMB Board of Trustees should recant in their adoption of the two new policies regarding private prayer language and baptism. Absent that, I fear that we are heading for a precipice where they will show that they choose to walk in a different direction from what was agreed upon by baptists. At that point, it is the IMB Board of Trustees that has left the fold, not the other way around. The problem is, they have taken our missionaries and sending apparatus with them. Cooperation will be a lost word, and the Cooperative Program will wither faster than our baptism numbers have fallen. We will continue to do missions, but many will not follow this new direction taken by the "trustees."

I pray that this day never comes. I pray that wisdom will prevail and the new policies will be rescinded. But, this is not some type of ultimatum to get my way. If God leads us to continue to support the IMB, even though I vehemently disagree with the actions of the BoT, then I will do so with great pleasure. It is God that we serve, not man, and He does direct us when we pray. So, we will see what happens. Again, this does not mean that everyone has to agree with my position on these tertiatry issues. I am just asking that there be room for both positions within the SBC, since that room has existed for years and both positions are strongly defended by conservative baptist scholars. I truly do pray that Jesus is glorified and that unity prevails. But, if a rupture occurs, it is not because we created it. It was created by the IMB BoT when they said that everyone had to agree with them, or they could not serve. I pray that they come to their senses and that our unity is restored in the person and work of Jesus Christ. 

My concern from the beginning of the controversy regarding the new IMB policies on baptism and private prayer language was that those policies would be unnecessarily restrictive and would discourage otherwise qualified candidates from applying for missionary service through the IMB. I know that at this present time, I would not recommend anyone from my church to serve as a missionary with the IMB until the climate changes.

Apparently, something has affected the number of missionary candidates that have been appointed by the IMB this year. There's no real way to say exactly what it is, but I would not be surprised if the new policies and the resulting controversy had something to do with it. Here is a passage from a Baptist Press article about the latest IMB Board of Trustee meeting (HT: Ben Cole):

In his report to trustees, IMB President Jerry Rankin appealed for a “new resolve” among Southern Baptists to counteract a slowdown in the growth of the international mission force -– especially in short-term missionary categories.

“I really believe what we have seen God doing in the first six years of this century exceeds even the previous decade in fulfilling the Great Commission,” Rankin said. “It’s evident God is using the volatile events around the world to turn the hearts of people to spiritual answers that only Jesus can provide. But whether or not people have an opportunity to hear, understand and respond to the [Gospel] is directly linked to the number of God’s people who will go in response to His call to engage in cross-cultural witness.”

IMB regional missionary leaders estimate a growth in the missionary force to 8,500 (from the current total of about 5,100) is needed to effectively touch the remaining unreached peoples of the world in partnership with overseas Baptists and other Great Commission groups.

“However, as we move into 2007 we see a disturbing trend,” Rankin said. “Appointments of new missionaries have plateaued, and the candidate pool is smaller than it has ever been in my tenure as president.

“Regrettably, we had to defer qualified missionaries being sent to the field in 2003 because Southern Baptists had not increased their giving commensurate with those being called out of our churches to go as missionaries. But churches got the message and in the last two years have responded with record levels of giving to the Cooperative Program and the Lottie Moon Christmas Offering. We were able to remove those restrictions and give priority to sending out career missionaries.

“In 2005, [trustees] approved a goal of sending out a thousand missionaries each year. I believe Southern Baptists are capable of sending out at least a thousand missionaries each year. They are stepping up to provide the financial support to make that happen. Money clearly follows missionaries, and as more and more are sent out, they represent more and more churches who then have a personalized identification with international missions.”

New IMB missionaries in 2006 numbered 758 -– 306 long-termers and 452 in short-term (two- or three-year) categories.

Rankin challenged Southern Baptists to send out 800 to 1,000 short-term personnel a year. Personnel serving short-term eventually will increase the number of long-term personnel. For each of the last eight years, one-third or more of all new long-term IMB missionaries have brought previous short-term experience.

“I am not suggesting loosening our qualifications,” Rankin said. “We must be sure our candidates are doctrinally sound, healthy in mind and body and adequately equipped by education and experience. But I am concerned that we must find ways to reverse the current trend by a renewed commitment to [communicate] that the International Mission Board is the agency of choice for Southern Baptist missionaries being called out of our churches.”

In his remarks, IMB trustee chairman John Floyd tearfully appealed to trustees to pray that God will send many new mission workers into the harvest.

“I’m asking you, are we praying?” Floyd said. “Is it a great enough need that we have missionaries going to the field and harvesters sent into the harvest that we will pray -– and I mean pray -– that we will cry out to a God who is able to supply what we ask? We need to find ways to enlist people, and we need to enlist them and challenge them. But oh, I beg you, let’s pray to the Lord of the harvest, and that way He will be the One who gets all the glory for bringing people to the field.”

We don't like to deal with cause and effect very much because it implies responsibility. We don't want to assume that God might be holding people back from going through the IMB, because that would dictate that one side is right and the other is wrong. But, despite what you might personally think about those statistics, the real reasons behind them are unknowable and given to speculation. I definitely think that we should NOT be presumptous and throw God's name around to defend one side over another. Truth doesn't work that way.

However, something is going on. Is it just a defecit in our churches? Laziness among the lay people? Sin in the pew? Lack of motivation? The Devil? What do you think it is? I've got a few ideas, but they don't really need to be stated right now.

Still, I believe that God is at work. He IS raising up people from every tribe, nation, people, and tongue. They are going forth all over the world to tell the Good News. God's Mission cannot be stopped by our lack of participation, arguing, and missing the point. The question is: Will we join Him?

The IMB Report on the Wade Burleson issue came out yesterday. Marty Duren, among others has the entire report HERE if you are interested in reading it. If you remember, Wade brought a motion before the SBC Annual Meeting last year asking for an investigation into the Board of Trustees of the IMB for behavior that was counter to their own by laws. This was especially in regard to illegal gathering of board members to supposedly collude against the IMB president, Jerry Rankin. I don't want to go into all of the allegations here, but the motion was referred back to the IMB BoT and they were told to examine themselves in house and respond to Wade's allegations. Most of it was expected and basically they said that they didn't do anything wrong. That wasn't really a shocker to anyone, was it?

But, response #4 illustrates the MASSIVE problem that we have within the SBC right now. And, it smacks of relativism, in my opinion. Here it is (the statement in bold represents the problem that Wade was asking the IMB BoT to address):

(4) The legislation of new doctrinal requisites for eligibility to serve as employees or missionaries of the IMB beyond the 2000 Baptist Faith and Message.

While the Baptist Faith and Message represents a general confession of Southern Baptist beliefs related to Biblical teachings on primary doctrinal and social issues, the IMB retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board.

The policies regarding baptism and private prayer language go beyond the theological parameters of the Baptist Faith & Message 2000. Here is the problem with that:

1. The BF&M2000 is the agreed upon basis of our cooperation as Southern Baptists. It is not the Bible, but it helps us interpret the Bible and state our agreement on major doctrines. If that were not so, then why were missionaries let go by the IMB when they refused to sign the BF&M2000? Was it not used as an instrument of doctrinal accountability?
2. The agencies, entities, state conventions, and local associations are the ARENAS where that cooperation takes place.  To cooperate in those arenas, there must be an agreed upon BASIS of cooperation, i.e. the BF&M2000. Do two walk together unless they have agreed to do so? Amos 3:3
3. If each ARENA of cooperation is able to assert it's own BASIS for cooperation that is different or goes beyond the BF&M2000, then they are able to retroactively rewrite the BASIS of cooperation through writing their own rules. It is akin to a liberal court reinterpreting the Constitution through judicial activism, instead of following a strict constructionism. How many of our Baptist leaders agree with that? Yet, they do the same thing.
4. The Baptist Faith & Message should be HARD to amend or rewrite. It should have a timeless quality to it and should not be amended, de facto, by entities and agencies who desire to foist their pet doctrines upon the rest of the SBC without going through the proper channels to see our confession of faith amended.

The IMB BoT says that it "retains the prerogative and responsibility of further defining the parameters of doctrinal beliefs and practices of its missionaries who serve Southern Baptists with accountability to this board."  That can mean anything that they want it to mean. It can change as they see fit. The Baptist Faith and Message 2000 that was important enough to them to be the basis for the firing of missionaries, is now insufficient as a doctrinal guide because it does not say everything that they want it to say. If it works for them to eliminate missionaries, they will use it. If it doesn't, they will add to it to eliminate missionaries. This is relativism at it's finest. The rules change to fit the perogative of those in control of the situation. It's also abusive and is the opposite of the actions that TRUSTEES should be taking.

I also hear a lot of talk regarding the "use of proper channels in changing the system." It seems to me that if you wanted to use proper channels to eliminate missionaries who had a PPL or who were baptized in churches that did not hold to the doctrine of eternal security, you would seek to change the BF&M2000 and bring those issues before the SBC at large. That is how other doctrinal issues severe enough to eliminate missionaries from service have been dealt with. But, why go to that trouble when your position holds a majority on the Board of Trustees? Why not just say, "We're changing the basis for cooperation because we can and you can't stop us"? 

The statements of the IMB Board of Trustees on this matter are astounding. Those who say that we should follow "proper channels" are only saying that because their perspective is being advanced. Any such call rings hollow to me and is full of hypocrisy when the entity that they champion seeks to change the basis of our cooperation de facto, instead of going through the proper channels itself.

I am probably as disappointed as I have been throughout this entire process. It is clear to me that the IMB Board of Trustees has no logical or intellectual integrity to their argument. In my opinion, they are making policy as it suits them, instead of thinking of the implications and their position of trust among Southern Baptists. The fact that NAMB embarked on a similar course in 1988 makes no difference to me. They were equally wrong, in my opinion, and that issue should be addressed as well. Either the Baptist Faith & Message means something or it doesn't. People join churches based upon their statement of faith. SBC churches use the BF&M as their statement of faith. Churches cooperate on the basis of an agreed upon statement of faith. Yesterday, the IMB Board of Trustees told us all that our statement of faith means nothing. I'll be sure to let the fired missionaries know. I'm sure that they'll be happy to hear that they were brought home from the mission field for nothing. So will all those who have yet to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ.    

What follows is strictly my opinion, nothing more. It is not what I want to see happen or hope will happen. But, I do feel like a rupture is drawing near if some things are not cleared up. The building storm in the SBC is going to sweep a lot of people with it, in my opinion. MSNBC has picked up on the Klouda Incident. We continue to have the IMB issues hanging over our heads. Marty Duren warns of a Great Divide that threatens to shatter the SBC into many different groups of traditionalists and reformers. We have declining baptisms and financial mismanagement or waste in our entities (see NAMB fiasco - actually all of our agencies are guilty of waste in one form or another). Trust is being lost amongst rank and file baptists and we are wondering how far this will all go.

Lately, I've been reading people say that those who are bringing up problems are the ones causing division. They are singing the song, "Can't we all just get along?"  Dr. Malcolm Yarnell asks this of David Rogers, the son of Adrian Rogers and IMB missionary to Spain on David's blog. An anonymous commenter on Wade Burleson's blog says that

The Klouda case has split the conservatives in the SBC. Sherri Klouda being hired under Ken Hemphill (former president of Southwestern) who by all means is a conservative and now being forced out by Paige Patterson who claims to be a conservative. Now it appears that SBC'ers are going to be chosing sides - Ken Hemphill or Paige Patterson. ISN'T THE DEVIL HAVING A GREAT TIME?

"Isn't the Devil having a great time?" Where was that argument when missionaries were denied service because they spoke in tongues or were baptized in another denomination? When Sheri Klouda was fired from a teaching position at Southwestern teaching HEBREW just because she is a woman? (My Hebrew teacher at GGBTS was a woman and she was wonderful. She did not have spiritual authority over me in the church, but she taught me a skill that I much appreciated.) Where was that argument when NAMB wasted millions of dollars on frivolous expenditures all in the name of "promoting the gospel?"  When a healthy church slips into decline because it cannot get it's focus off of itself and it's own desires? When we are focused on every little thing in the world instead of Jesus and the living out and proclamation of the Gospel?  I guess that argument can go both ways, depending on how you look at it.

As the debate over the future of the SBC continues, many are lashing back at the reformers by saying that they are messing things up for everyone else by bringing up problems. The expectation is that everyone should accept every decision made by those in authority without question, whether we feel it is Biblical or not. The idea that each of us are to go to Scripture and read it for ourselves is giving way to a papist demand for conformity in all things, primary or secondary.  During the Conservative Resurgence, all tactics seemed to be fair game and many reputations were ruined, but even principled dissent now is seen as out of bounds.  Defenders of the status quo are saying that dissent should now be taken through proper channels and protesters should "work within the system," so that those in power can decide if they will respond to disagreement or not.  I agree with working within the system, but it has been shown again and again that the "proper channels" tend to clog up a bit when requests are made that are not agreeable. Simply discussing issues that affect all of us on blogs is apparently no longer o.k. I guess it is better to plot a takeover in secret, like our current leaders did 30 years ago.

All in all, I do not see how this disagreement regarding the parameters of cooperation and the nature of dissent can end up positively in the SBC. There is a Missional Resurgence occurring and those of us who are taking part in it want to make sure that the SBC will be a place that we can do the work God has assigned us without worrying about constantly having to navigate through unneccessary obstacles. We want to make sure that we can ALL participate in global missions. We want our Cooperative Program money spent wisely and not wasted. We want our denominational agencies and entities to function correctly and to follow our statement of faith and their own operational by-laws. We want ALL Southern Baptists to be represented in decision making and not just a few. We hope that the SBC is large enough for cessationists and continualists, Calvinists and non-Calvinists, traditionalists and others, etc., etc. For this, we are called "political" and oppositional. We are told to be quiet and just enjoy the parade. We are told to give money, but do not ask for accountability.

Sigh. With all of these things going on, the biggest issue for me remains the IMB policies restricting missionary appointment because of private prayer language and baptism differences. Those issues directly relate to world missions and are most important to me in this whole thing. Much of this other stuff has been happening for a long time, and I never raised much of an eyebrow. I just kind of expected it. But, now that I am more aware, I am noticing the other things as well. I'm still waiting to see if participation in the ministry of the SBC is worth it in the long run. I'm not talking about withdrawing from the SBC, but rather, just not being personally involved with anything that goes on with it. Will there be a positive response in this conversation, or do we just need to take our energy and ideas elsewhere? Personally, I'm leaning toward the latter, but hope springs eternal, so I wait, watch, and listen. At the end of the day (and all throughout, actually), my hope is in Jesus Christ, because I know that the mission of God is much bigger than the SBC and anything that goes on amongst us. He remains on His throne and He continues to answer all who call upon Him. May He be glorified and the rest of this fade away.   

Paul said, in the Second Letter to the Corinthians, chapter 11, verses 2-4,

2I am jealous for you with a godly jealousy. I promised you to one husband, to Christ, so that I might present you as a pure virgin to him. 3But I am afraid that just as Eve was deceived by the serpent's cunning, your minds may somehow be led astray from your sincere and pure devotion to Christ. 4For if someone comes to you and preaches a Jesus other than the Jesus we preached, or if you receive a different spirit from the one you received, or a different gospel from the one you accepted, you put up with it easily enough.

This passage makes me think of many of the problems that have erupted in the SBC recently. It also makes me think about how we do church and live out our lives. Is Christ our focus? Are we passionate about Jesus, or about ministry? Do we love Christ, or love our churches, positions, and ministries? When I frequent Christian web sites and blogs, I rarely see Jesus mentioned. There was a paper put out recently by Dr. Malcolm Yarnell of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary that many of you have already seen and commented on, where he gets all excited about the Baptist Renaissance at Southwestern. He mentions "baptists" 68 times in the article, and Jesus or Christian only 7 times. I know that the point of the article is how great it is that SWBTS is getting back to it's strictly Baptist roots, but if we are taking time to exalt our denomination, church, or ministry in a way that leaves out Jesus or uses Him to accomplish our own purpose, we are in error. If only we could have a renaissance of simple and pure devotion to Christ in the SBC or in our churches. Or, in our hearts.

What else has grabbed your attention? What are you using Jesus for? To have a better life? To grow your church and/or ministry? To give you what you want? To help you with evangelism or missions (those things, as good as they are can miss the point if we see Jesus as a means to an end)? Is He looked to so that you can prove your theological points? That would at least be something, because we rarely even refer to Christ in all of our religious talk, unless to say we are Christians or we are doing this to honor Jesus Christ. I wonder how honored He really is, when we use Him to further our own ends.

Jesus cannot be owned by us. We cannot use Him to make ourselves feel better, to have a better family or personal life, or to have a more successful ministry. He is not to be used to win theological arguments. He is to be worshipped because He is worthy of our praise and we are to be devoted to Christ alone. Jesus is not a method for church growth so that we can feel better about ourselves and be "successful" or "effective" in ministry, nor will He give our blessing to our triumphal pronouncements of how right we are on everything. Devotion to Christ demands humility because we begin to understand how amazing He is and how dependent upon Him we are - for everything.

Our church is growing right now at a fairly rapid pace. And, I don't know why. Of course, we have wonderful people who love the Lord, but what I mean is, there is no method that we are using. I can't look at 3 steps to church growth like I was taught in seminary and in the books I've read and explain why people are getting saved, growing in their walk, inviting others to church, and gathering in small groups to disciple one another. I've tried to figure it out and I can't. Well, there goes the book I was going to write and the church growth conference! All that I can say is that we continue to lift up the name of Jesus and trust the work of the Holy Spirit in the lives of our people. He is doing it. God is at work all around us and people are responding. They are taking submitting their own lives to the Lord and something supernatural is happening in their lives, that is actually natural for the Christian. We are just simply looking to Jesus and letting Him do what He wants. It is quite liberating, actually.

I guess I am learning that we cannot own Jesus. We can't get Him to work for us, no matter how many prayers we pray or how much we obey so He will bless us. The New Covenant requires that we live our lives in RESPONSE to His gracious initiative.  It means that we are free from striving and trying to earn God's blessing because He has truly paid the price for our sins and He gives us new life in Him. He was free, yet took our burden, so that we could be free. Do we believe it? Or, do we continue to construct our own burdens that we try and lift so that somehow, someway, God might bless us. Well, He already has - in Christ. But, we are too busy running after other things to notice.

I leave you with some poignant lines from a Rich Mullins song, "You Did Not Have a Home,"

Well you had no stones to throw
You came without an ax to grind
You did not tow the party line, No wonder sight came to the blind
You had no stones to throw
You had no stones to throw
And You rode and ass' foal
They spread their coats and cut down palms
For You and Your donkey to walk upon
But the world won't find what it thinks it wants
On the back of an ass' foal
So I guess You had to get sold
'Cause the world can't stand what it can't own
And it can't own You 'Cause You did not have a home
Birds have nests, foxes have dens
But the hope of the whole world rests
On the shoulders of a homeless man
You had the shoulders of a homeless man

May we all be reminded of the simplicity of devotion to Christ in all things. May He receive the glory.

Warning: Blatant Baptist ramblings ahead. Proceed at your own risk. What you read may frighten you, cause you to run and hide, or make you wish you had never heard of denominations. Do not fear, I will not address this subject again until well into January, if then. I will write happy posts about Christmas, children, and jolly good times. But, for now, only if you are interested, you can engage with me on why I care about the goings on in the SBC and what difference it might make to anything that really matters in life. You might be surprised.

Over the past year, Southern Baptists have been engaged in a struggle over what defines the limits of our cooperation in missions (you can read my articles on the topic HERE).  Some have tried to say that if you believe that the gifts of the Spirit have continued to this day (a continualist position), including speaking in tongues privately in prayer to God, you should not be accepted as a missionary candidate with the International Mission Board (IMB).  There are other issues that are dividing us, including issues surrounding baptism and Christian liberty.

I am just going to say a few things about this and ask a few questions like the ones I have been posing to Dr. Bart Barber, pastor of First Baptist Church, Farmersville, TX.  Dr. Barber is an a posteriori cessationist  , which basically means that, while he doesn't see Biblical evidence for the ceasing of the miraculous gifts of the Holy Spirit, he has looked around and not seen them in operation the way he thinks the Bible says. Therefore, he has come to the conclusion that God must have withdrawn them. Besides the fact that this view places all the weight of the evidence on what Dr. Barber himself has seen or not seen, it goes beyond the words of Scripture (or falls short) and places it's faith in experience, or lack thereof, rather than in what the Bible tells us to expect. Dr. Barber and I had a lively debate on this on one of my posts on the Holy Spirit, so you can see for yourself how he answered these questions. I do not want to put words in his mouth, so please, read his words for yourself.

Recently, Dr. Barber has been writing posts proclaiming that it is thoroughly natural for the SBC to divide, at least in our appointment of missionaries, and perhaps beyond, over the issue of private prayer language.  He is a fair and good man, and I have learned to appreciate his keen mind, gentle spirit, and heart for the Lord and others. I enjoy discussing these things with him, because I feel that he is fair in his treatment of the subject and he will keep you thinking. I hope I do the same for him. In short, he is EXACTLY the type of man that I would love to work with, despite my continualist views, and is a good example of everything that I love about the SBC.

However, I am obviously in disagreement with him and many others who are advocating that a form of cessationism be considered the de facto theological position on this matter in the SBC. I feel that there are many who would like to see this view codified in the Baptist Faith & Message (BF&M), the Southern Baptist confession of faith. With recent events in our missions agency and at Southwestern Seminary, this possibility seems to be gaining steam. I take being involved in a denomination seriously, because we attach our name to theirs. We send 10% of our tithes and offerings to denominational entities and we do missions through the SBC. We participate with our sister churches in many things and we share a common theological heritage. I care about this because it is important. Let me list some ways the SBC will be affected, in my opinion, if this gathering storm against continualists keeps moving forward:

David Dockery, the president of Union University, a Baptist school in Tennessee, called for unity among Southern Baptists based on the essentials of the faith (HT: Wade Burleson). This is a really great article and I agree with his perspective wholeheartedly.  Here's a couple of excerpts:

“What I wanted to do was to call us back to a primary focus on the Gospel itself and understand those areas where we have strong agreement about the sinfulness of humanity and their lostness apart from Christ, that our salvation is found in Christ alone,” Dockery said.

“I invite us to move from controversy and confusion to a new consensus and take a step back, not just to commit ourselves afresh to missions and evangelism, as important as that is, but to commit ourselves first and foremost to the Gospel, the message of missions and evangelism, the message that is found only in Jesus Christ and His atoning death for sinners,” Dockery said. “I trust that we can hold hands together for the good of the Gospel beginning here at Union University, which can bring a fresh breath, a fresh wind of God’s Spirit across Tennessee Baptist life and across the Southern Baptist Convention.”

“It is possible to hold hands with brothers and sisters who disagree on secondary and tertiary matters of theology and work together toward a common good to advance the Kingdom of God,” Dockery said. “But we need to be of like mind on first-order issues, issues such as the authority and truthfulness of the Bible, the deity and humanity of Christ, the Holy Trinity and the exclusivity of the Gospel.”

Amen, brother! May your tribe increase! Again, read the article HERE.

And, if you haven't already, check out some of my thoughts on unity last week at my post, Our Real Basis of Unity.

This is a good synopsis of the issue surrounding speaking in tongues in the SBC by Sam Hodges of the Dallas Morning News: Tongues Tied: The Lowdown on a Baptist Spat. I wanted to link to it for future reference. It summarizes the issues well. HT:  Ben Cole.

I got a call this week from a reporter at the Montgomery Advertiser, our local newspaper. After already being misquoted in the Dallas Morning News, I was a little hesitant to be interviewed. But, this was for an entirely different reason. Someone in our congregation thought that what is going to happen Sunday night is newsworthy, and I guess it is. We have invited Family Life Bible Fellowship, a predominately black church, to join us for our annual Christmas party, the Christmas Extravaganza. The reporter thought that this was interesting, because it is rare to see black and white churches working together this way. He asked me if I thought that was significant.

Well, I guess it is. But, it shouldn't be. And, Pastor Slater and I are not doing this because we are tying to prove some type of racial unity point. We're doing it because we're friends. We've come together before and it just seemed like it would be fun. Unity is much easier when you are actually in relationship with someone, instead of it being contrived.

When I think about the difficulties that we addressed at the Roundtable discussion in Arlington on Tuesday, and I think about this event coming on Sunday, I understand more and more that I am not unified with others just because we have Baptist on our name. As a matter of fact, if there is no relationship, it doesn't matter what your name is - we're probably not going to be real effective working together. Unity first comes from being a like minded believer in Christ. Secondly, it comes from love. Thirdly, it comes from being in relationship. You have to be friends to trust one another and work together. This has been one of the benefits of the blogs: it has been a forum for building relationships and friendships with other pastors that I never would have met otherwise.

Perhaps our racial problems in the U.S. have more to do with a lack of friendship and understanding, than anything else.

Perhaps our family problems have more to do with a lack of time spent together in mutually edifying relationships and friendships, than anything else. The same can be said for many of the problems in our churches.

Perhaps the problems in the SBC have far more to do with the fact that we don't have strong relationships, than it does with a lack of giving to the Cooperative Program.

Christ is the basis for our unity. Nothing else. If you are in Christ, you are my brother. You are my friend. And, because He lives in me, sacrificial love is there for even my enemies. During the Christmas season, lets try and share that love with family, neighbors, co-workers, friends, and even enemies. Maybe God will surprise all of us!

Okay. What a day. I just made it back to Birmingham and I'm at Children's Hospital. Erika is asleep down the hall with Caelan and I wandered down to the parent's lounge where there is a computer. Yesterday, I was in Montgomery, travelled to Dallas and Arlington, TX, came back to Birmingham tonight and I'll be sleeping in a chair in anticipation of a port surgery for Caelan tomorrow morning. It is 11:04 pm, and I'm getting pretty tired. I really don't know anything right now about what will happen tomorrow, but his first port surgery was not that bad. Hopefully, this will not be either.

So, I figure I'll ramble a bit and get a decent update in concerning the events of the Roundtable Discussion at Cornerstone Baptist Church in Arlington, TX. 

Before I get into my take on the proceedings, you can read the article in the Dallas Morning News. I am quoted at the bottom completely out of context, of course. Here's the quote:

But some of the participants said their allegiance might not last forever. If the denomination continues to ignore concerns, his church may eventually decide it "won't continue to participate," said the Rev. Alan Cross, pastor of Gateway Baptist in Montgomery, Ala.

In missions - with the IMB that is saying it doesn't want us. We really have no choice, do we? What I actually said was that SBC leaders need to understand that if continualists are permanently shut out of being involved in missions through our missions agencies because of restrictive, and unbiblical policies, we will eventually have to find another way to cooperate in missions and carry out our God assigned task. We won't just sit back and do nothing. I said this AFTER affirming the SBC, the Cooperative Program, and our place as Southern Baptists. I was not trying to imply that we were interested in leaving the SBC, joining another denomination, bringing division, etc. Just, if you can't work through our mission boards, eventually you will have to do missions some other way and this is a big enough issue to find that other way. I have no idea what that other way is, by the way, or at what point we would have to make that decision - I guess if we totally fail in trying to bring about change and the powers that be tell us to take a hike. But, that is for a later day. Ah, the media. But, I guess I should have known.

Writing from the DFW airport, so this will be brief. The Roundtable went really well, I thought. There were over 100 pastors present from all over the country. Many resolutions and letters were agreed upon to present at the convention and there were details given about the conference on the Holy Spirit in April.  All in all, it was very positive for like minded brothers to gather together. I think that I see a time line of action developing that will hopefully bring these issues to a head sooner rather than later. This has been a long road over the past year, but I think that we will soon see which direction the SBC as a whole will be headed. I'll write more about this later when I have a better computer and have more time. I am sure that some will attack pastors coming together to ask the SBC leadership to reverse course on the issue of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, but that is ridiculous in my opinion. We should be gathering together more, in my opinion. Hopefully, we will soon be gathering to talk about how we can get back to the main issues of reaching the world for Christ and sending out all qualified missionaries.

More later when I have more time . . .

As I think about my attendance at the Pastor's Roundtable meeting at Dr. Dwight McKissic's church Monday and Tuesday, my heart harkens back to King Arthur and parodies, such as Monty Python and the Holy Grail and funny stories of quests and journeys of long ago. So, I thought I'd engage in a bit of creative writing:

Year of our Lord, 2006.

As the last days of autumn draw to a close, and the days grow shorter and the nights colder, I have been beckoned to the Roundtable, where all good knights sit shoulder to shoulder in equality. I will travel on ground and through the air to a convocation of sorts, a gathering of Believers, to match our wits and wisdom, led by our Great Guide, regarding the plagues that trouble the Realm. For a year now, there have been shouts and whispers of a movement to draw tight the lines of brotherhood and leave those who have fought nobly for the Cause outside the castle walls. Many have arisen to ward off this constriction and reach out to our brothers who would seek to limit the fellowship so that we may open wide the gates to all Brothers of the Faith. The real Enemy of our Souls is lecherous and advancing at every turn. Brothers should not push away Brothers from the table of meeting and fraternity. We have a true battle to fight, and it is not against one another. It should definitely not be over small matters such as how one prays or is baptized.

So, with that in mind, we gird up our hearts and minds and, together, bow before our King. May He bring us together in true unity, uniting the Realm for the real battle that is brewing on every side - a battle without and not within - a battle for the souls of men. May we lock arms with all good soldiers and remember to what field we have been called. May we tear asunder every prohibition that does not align itself with the Holy Book and that would keep good men apart in a far off country. May we raise armies of soldiers who are singularly focused in their desire to advance the Realm of the King into dark places all over this wide earth.  May we be knights who put one another before ourselves. Christ before us, Christ behind us, Christ to our right, our left, above and below. Christ within.

What doth the Roundtable have in store? Surely, we shall soon see . . . .

I'll be back on Wednesday with a full report.

This is the last in my series on Evangelicals and the Holy Spirit, particularly in relation to the continuation of Spiritual Gifts, and especially speaking in tongues. I will attempt to answer some questions regarding the role and purpose of speaking in tongues in this post. As you read this, think about whether or not you think this is a reasonable teaching, or as SWBTS says, it is a doctrine harmful to the churches.

The Role of the Holy Spirit in Prayer

(Please note: Jesus said a great deal about prayer that is not germane to this discussion on speaking in tongues. This is in no way meant to be a comprehensive treatment of the subject of prayer.)

Let’s turn our attention to Romans 8:26-27: “In the same way, the Spirit helps us in our weakness. We do not know what we ought to pray for, but the Spirit himself intercedes for us with groans that words cannot express. And he who searches our hearts knows the mind of the Spirit, because the Spirit intercedes for the saints in accordance with God's will.”  So, what happens here?

1. The Spirit helps us in our weakness
2. We do not know what to pray for
3. The Spirit intercedes for us with unutterable groans
4. The Spirit intercedes for us in accordance with God’s will

After talking about presuppositions and foundations, it is time to move to the direct issue of speaking in tongues. This issue is important because the boards of trustees of the International Mission Board (IMB), the North American Mission Board (NAMB), and Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary (SWBTS) have all made statements and policy against this practice.  In doing so, they have gone beyond the Baptist Faith & Message2000, our confession of faith.  Where do Baptists and Evangelicals stand on this issue? Where should we stand? It is not that we should embrace speaking in tongues, or private prayer language (ppl) as many have called it. It is not that we should promote the practice. But, should we eliminate from missionary service and leadership in the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC), those who do engage in this practice? Is it that big of a deal, or is it a non-essential that can be overlooked? Is there room enough in the SBC for both the pro and con positions on this issue to exist side by side? Time will tell, but I wanted to put my two cents into the debate.

I ran across this article today and thought it was pretty funny. It just goes to show how we can make the Bible say just about anything we want based on our presuppositions, eh? As you read this, think about other passages that can be taken out of context, viewed in isolation, and used wrongly.

MINOT, N.D. — Jack Crocker, a beer-loving machinist and "part-time Christian," finally agreed to read Proverbs with wife Reanna. He's glad he did.
    "I'm a Proverbs 31 husband all right," says Jack, then quotes Proverbs 31:6-7: "Give beer to those who are perishing, wine to those who are in anguish; let them drink and forget their poverty and remember their misery no more."
    "That's my permission to crack open a cold one," Jack says, having a Coors after dinner.
    But Reanna, a new church member, is pushing Jack hard to stop drinking. She insists he is neither "perishing" nor "in anguish." But Jack researched the Bible on the Internet and found 2 Corinthians 4:16 and 5:2 which say, "Though outwardly we are wasting away, yet inwardly we are being renewed day by day," and "Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed with our heavenly dwelling."
    "Everyone is perishing and in anguish," Jack says. "Until we're delivered from these bodies, the Bible says to drink up."
    As part of the escalating family tension he created a "Proverbs 31" category on their weekly budget and listed "beer" under it. He also wants to start a Proverbs 31 Men's Group with his buddies.
    "We're trying to find where the Bible talks about buffalo wings," he says. •

And, in case you didn't know, I found it on Lark News, which is a Christian satire site. They try to make points about how ridiculous we can be through satire, which is usually lost on most people.  I don't approve of everything there, but they usually make pretty good points that get me to think about things in a different way.

In my previous post on this issue, I dealt with the idea of the origins of cessationism (the belief that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased). I believe that cessationism is directly related to the skepticism of the Enlightenment and resulting modernism and has more in common with liberalism than with Biblical conservatism. The cessationist claims to follow Scripture as his foundation and guide, but in reality, he is taking built in presuppositions that derive from an anti-supernatural bias to the reading of the text.

This is the first of a several part series on Evangelicalism and the Holy Spirit. This post sets a very superficial context from a cultural and historical view that is needed, I feel, to truly understand the issues. It is longer than most blog posts and will be the longest of this series by far, but I believe it will be beneficial to the subject later in the week. So, grab a cup of coffee, pull up a chair, and let’s explore some issues in depth.

To rip off Al Michaels call when the U.S. beat Russia in hockey in the 1980 Olympics, “Do you believe in miracles?”  Every Bible believing Evangelical Christian would say yes, but there would be a lot of caveats offered for some. Some believe that, while God can do anything, the Age of Miracles have ceased and the miraculous gifts of the Spirit that were operative when the New Testament was being written are no longer given to the churches. These people are called cessationist (gifts have ceased).  Others believe that God continues to pour out his gifts  and perform miracles today. These people are called continualists (gifts have continued).  With the building controversy in the SBC over the restriction of missionaries who speak in tongues and the strong stance that Southwestern Seminary has taken against the practice, I feel that we are heading for a collision of worldviews in both the SBC and the evangelical world.  There are streams of thought (the cessationist view vs. the continualist view) that have run together for some time, but now seem to be diverging. Is this to be expected? Is it more important to stay unified or to follow what we believe the Bible to be teaching? How did we become divided? What are the solutions? I want to explore some of these questions over the next several posts and point to some possible solutions.

Bill Harrell, the chairman of the Executive Committee of the Southern Baptist Convention and pastor of Abilene Baptist Church in Martinez, Georgia, created a stir this week when he said that Southern Baptists needed a uniform style of worship (traditional) and that Calvinist pastors were destroying churches (see Marty Duren HERE).  Well, apparently he also feels that the great hindrance to revival in America is the preponderance of  .  .  .  . are you ready?  PEOPLE FROM OTHER CULTURES WHO HAVE COME TO THE UNITED STATES!  That's right. The reason why revival hasn't happened is because of multiculturalism and the fact that new immigrants are keeping their native cultures and are not assimilating.

After going on for awhile about how irritating it is to go through an automated operator that first gives instructions in Spanish and how America is a Christian nation and people from other religions should just deal with it, he finally gets to his point about revival.  In his essay, "A Major Deterrent to Revival" (HT: Nick Kennicott), Harrell says:

Now, let’s get to the revival question. In the past, when a revival came in America or in an area, it was a Christian revival since the preponderance of people were Christian. So, since the most of society identified itself as Christian everyone came closer to responding to the effects of the revival and therefore a Christian revival occurred. But today, if we have a Christian revival, much of society will be unmoved. Because of our multiculturalism, which in large part expresses itself in the religious realm, large segments of society will remain unaffected or uncaring about the revival. If the Christians were revived, that is only a portion of the societal makeup. Much of the nation would be unmoved. They are maintaining their own religions with Christianity being classed as no more than one among many. It is no longer viewed as the predominant religion of America and has been relegated to another status. If the Christians in the 1700’s and 1800’s as well as the first half of the 1900’s had a revival then the whole nation was affected. But today much of the nation would hardly pay us any attention. We have failed to hold Christianity up as the religion upon which the founding documents of this nation were grounded.   

So, revival such as has been seen in the past probably won’t happen again apart from a mighty act of God. We should pray that God would supernaturally intervene and bring a national revival to our midst. That is the only thing which is going to save this great country. The pagan religions living among us know nothing about revival but Christians do and we should pray and pray that God would bless us with a heaven sent national revival. 

I truly don't even know where to start. Yes, we need revival desperately. But, people coming to America from other cultures and religions are not what is stopping revival. Revival is not something that you can schedule or is dependent upon the cultural dominance of Christians. Revival is ALWAYS wholly dependent upon God's power and His sovereign work. Rev. Harrell acts like we are now at some type of disadvantage because we've been overrun by Mexicans. How unbiblical is this? If Christians are truly "revived" and filled with the power of the Holy Spirit, then a small number can turn the world upside down. Or, do we not believe the accounts of the Book of Acts in the Bible? Are we so dependent upon "Christian Culture" that we have lost all faith in what God can do through a small remnant who are sold out to Him? If this is how our leaders believe, we are truly in a deeper mess than we thought.

It's the last day of October, the 31st to be exact, so I thought I'd return to the blogosphere. I took a self imposed blog fast for the last half of the month and I made up my mind not to comment on other blogs or write a post of my own. It was refreshing to not feel the need to publish every thought that was rolling around in my head.  For a week of that time, my family took a much needed vacation to the sugary white beaches of Florida's Emerald Coast (where the picture of the sunset came from). The rest of the time has been immersed in 2007 planning, budget meetings, the Fall Family Fun Night, and ministry.

Another reason why I took a break is because I wanted to clear my head and reset a bit in regard to my writing.  The idea of Downshoredrift is that God is at work all the time, moving us closer to Him. It's like when you are in the waves at the beach and you think you are in front of your umbrella and chair, but in reality you have moved down the beach and you didn't even realize it. That's called Downshoredrift.  Well, God is always at work to draw us to Himself and sometimes, it is so imperceptible that we don't realize it unless we are really paying attention.  I want to continue to write about that and keep giving praise to God.

Sometimes, we can also drift away from God.  One decision leads to another, and before we know it, we have grown lukewarm or have compromised ourselves. It can happen so quickly, that we do not even realize it. Fortunately, grace is greater than all of our sin and coldness of heart, and like a life guard, God rescues us from the waves that would tear us apart.

So, Downshoredrift embodies the movement of God in our life and it also characterizes the battle that we are in to keep our eyes open and to stay aware regarding truth and lies. I want my writing to be both pastoral and prophetic, so that I can call people to the loving arms of their Father God, and also warn against dangerous paths that we might be headed down. Downshoredrift has become a powerful metaphor for me, in that it describes the full range of emotions and activities that present themselves in our daily lives. Fortunately, God is always at work and His grace is sufficient. He is more than enough. I want to live with my eyes wide open and see God at work and give Him praise. I don't want to miss a thing.

So, God has been at work! Caelan, my 1 year old son with cancer, seems to be getting stronger every day as he gets over the effects of his radiation. His appetite is up and his blood counts have been higher. Thank you SO MUCH for your prayers! God is faithful!

God is really working in our church as people are growing in their relationship with the Lord and others are coming to Christ. God is adding to our church in awesome ways and we are reaching out in our workplaces and neighborhoods like never before. We had a big Fall Festival type gathering on Sunday night that was probably the biggest event we've ever done, and there was a lot of joy. So, praise God!

I have been reading about the continuing issues in the SBC in regard to the gifts of the Holy Spirit. This continues to grieve me and I'm going to be writing quite a bit about it later this week and in the future. But, I know that God is up to something and I pray that we all submit to Him in this.

We are facilitating several trips to South Asia next year, and I might be going on two of the three. We'll see, but there are some really incredible opportunities opening up for us. I'll keep you posted.

Well, it was good to reintroduce myself! Let me leave you with this verse, Job 42:4-6:

4"You said, 'Listen now, and I will speak;
       I will question you,
       and you shall answer me.'

5 My ears had heard of you
       but now my eyes have seen you.

6 Therefore I despise myself
       and repent in dust and ashes."

May we all have encounters with God this week that moves us from the realm of hearing about Him to truly experiencing His presence for ourselves. May we all be brought low before the magnificence of Almighty God, the Creator of the Universe. May we trust Him completely and throw our lives into His care with reckless abandon. May we see the Lord and worship Him.

(Picture on Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary's Heritage page of Billy Graham, avowed continualist in that he believes that supernatural gifts such as speaking in tongues have continued to the present day).

I've been doing some pondering in the wake of Chapelgate last week concering Dr. McKissic's address (if you don't know what I'm talking about, you can read my post HERE, or check out Rob Slagle's collection of pertinent posts and articles HERE). I got in a pretty heavy debate with a fellow over on Wade Burleson's blog last week concerning the validity of a private prayer language (it was in the comments of this post). My purpose was not to convince him that tongues were for him, but rather to give a good defense of my heartfelt position regarding the view that the miraculous gifts of the Spirit, including speaking in tongues, were still operative today. I also wanted to show that this view had enough merit to be allowed to exist within the SBC. I didn't get anywhere, even though we had a courteous debate.

Well, I've been writing on everyone else's blog about the issues going on at Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary with the semi-censoring of chapel speaker and SWBTS Trustee Dwight McKissic. So, I'd thought I'd write here. To catch you up, the Fort Worth Star Telegram, Dallas Morning News, and Ethics Daily have good summations of the event if you are not familiar with what happened (thanks Dorcas!).

Arkansas Razorbaptist pointed me to a post by Mark Dever, pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington, D.C. where he points out the biggest problem that came out of the SBC in Greensboro: the disapproval of the resolution on integrity in church membership by Tom Ascol.  Southern Baptists have 16 million members, but we can only find about 8 million. The other 8 million do not come to church. The resolution stated that we should purge our rolls of people who don't attend. It called for honesty in reporting of our numbers by our churches. The resolution was defeated and one of the reasons given was that it would encourage the removal of prospects off the rolls of the church. Prospects?!?! How can church members be prospects? The idea of membership in a church is that you are to be regenerated by the Spirit. You are to be a believer who is born again. You are to be a Christian. How can you be a prospect? If you don't come to church, it might not mean that you aren't saved, but your church does not need to lie and say that you are a part of that body. How can you be a part of a body with which you have no relationship other than your name being on a list?

Anyway, I started thinking that this is a MUCH bigger issue than we are willing to admit. In the South, we have millions of people that are innoculated against the gospel because they feel like they are alright. They are members of a church, or they got baptized years ago, or something. They are fine even though they have no desire for the Lord, they haven't been to church in years, they live however they want, and there is no conviction of sin. But, they are o.k. because they've been told they are o.k. What are we doing? I'm not saying we should condemn people, and I am all about grace, but lying to people about their relationship with the Lord and making them feel better only prepares a soul for hell. We should take this very seriously.

I know I don't usually talk like this. But, there is NO salvation outside of saving faith in Jesus Christ. We must be born again. Many will say, "Lord, Lord" on the day of judgment, but Jesus will say, "depart from me you evildoers. I never knew you" - Matt. 7:21-23.  This is a critical thing that we have played fast and loose with for too long. Compassion and love dictate that we are honest and that we endeavor to rescue people from damning complacency. Mark Dever is right. One day, we will give an acount before the Lord and we will have to tell him that we cared more about numbers on a report than souls for eternity. God help us.

Yesterday, I ran across an interview that outgoing SBC President Dr. Bobby Welch gave after the convention in Greensboro (HT: John Stickley). As many of you know, there was a resolution that was passed against the consumption, use, manufacturing, and sale of alcoholic beverages.  Obviously, every Baptist is against drunkeness and agrees with the Biblical prohibitions regarding that issue. That is not what the debate has been about. The debate has concerned whether it is permissable for a Christian to have even a glass of wine on a rare occasion. The resolutions says "No."  Many have countered the resolution by pointing out that there is no Biblical injunction against having a small amount of alcohol in moderation and even Jesus turned water to wine. Anyway, it has been a big debate and I have been kind of bored by it because everyone just snipes at each other and no one really listens, it seems. I have tried to stay out of this debate to follow the admonition of Romans 14: 19-23 that tells us to do what leads to peace and mutual edification and to not cause your brother to stumble. It also says that whatever you believe about such matters you should keep to yourself so that you will not be condemned by what you approve of and that everything that does not come from faith is sin. So, I see little benefit in coming down on one side or another of a non-essential, unless it becomes a gospel issue, which at times it has. 

But, when I read the words of Bobby Welch in an interview he gave on June 27, I had to take issue, not over the alcohol issue, but over bearing false witness against your neighbor. The Ninth Commandment in Exodus 20:16 says, "You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor." I believe that Bobby Welch did so. Here are his words:

So, the SBC Annual Meeting is almost a week behind us and the Baptist Bloggers have mostly all chimed in their thoughts regarding the historic events of the past few days. Bobby Welch stirred up a hornet’s nest when he addressed the bloggers during his closing address by saying, “if we’d spend less time on these websites that we’d be able to spend more time witnessing? “Do you think if we spent less time blogging we might have more time to do some baptizing? Do you think if we spent less time fumbling around with those computers we might have more converts?” Welch advised the crowd not to gloat that he’s chiding “them bloggin’ boys. Why, you run around with that wireless telephone up in your ear all day long like a pacifier. “You think if we’d spend less time with those wireless telephones and more time on the street we wouldn’t win more people to Jesus?” It just goes to show how much folks do not get the dynamics of the blogosphere. If you address it in a disparaging way, the little people with computers and blogs are going to write about it. Pretty elementary, really.  He is also dead wrong, but that’s already been covered exhaustively.

My Own Thoughts:

• Surprise of the Bloggers,    Thoughts on the Convention,    Cooperative Program Analysis Cooperative Program Analysis

The Thoughts of Other Baptist Bloggers:

• Art Rogers-Analysis of the convention – 6/14 
• MartyDuren’s take on the Bobby Welch quote
• Marty Duren’s analysis of the SBC Meeting 
• Ben Cole’s wrap-up and analysis of political connotations – Condi Rice 6/16 
• Micah Fries 6/15 
• Micah Fries 6/14 – Tuesday night meeting in suite    
• Micah Fries 6/14 – Take on the election    
• Jeff Richard Young on politics at the SBC 6/17    
• Arkansas Razorbaptist on Condi Rice speech 6/15   
• Arkansas Razorbaptist on Calvinist issues 6/16   
• Wade Burleson on alcohol issue 6/14   
• Wade Burleson on presidential vote and bloggers meeting at the Sheraton 6/14   
• Tad Thompson on presidential election and the role of bloggers 6/13   
• Paul Burleson’s take onGreensboro, including comments on the bloggers 6/16   
• Dorcas Hawker’s links to other bloggers’ take on the convention 6/16   
• John Stickley on Bobby Welch’s comments re: the Bloggin’ Boys 6/14   
• Ronnie Floyd’s reaction to the election 6/15   
• Kiki Cherry’s response to Bobby Welch 6/15     Doug Cherry’s response to Bobby Welch 6/16
• Tim Sweatman on IMB Chairman John Floyd’s comments re: Executive Sessions 6/14
• Tim Sweatman's Notes from Frank Page’s press conference 6/13   
• Joe McKeever (New Orleans DOM) provides a different take on the convention 6/17   
• Cliff Cummings excellent synopsis of the entire convention through a series of posts   http://gracefullwords.blogspot.com/2006/06/historic-day-in-greensboro-with-few.html   http://gracefullwords.blogspot.com/2006/06/greensboro-one.html
• Tom Ascol’s Failed Resolution on Integrity of Church Membership   
• Ben Cole’s Failed Resolution on Baptist Dissent   
• Bowden McElroy’s Questions about the Annual Meeting 6/16   
• Kevin Bussey’s thoughts re: Condolezza Rice’s speech    
• CB Scott on the Young SBC   
• Steve McKoy on Alcohol Resolution    
• Steve McKoy on Pastor’s Conference and Young Leaders Meeting   
• Justin Taylor on SBC Resolution Against Alcohol 
• Joe Thorn is Encouraged - Things Are Changing
• Paul Littleton on possible Open Theism at the SBC Annual Meeting   
• David Phillip’s synopsis of the Tuesday events    
• David Phillip's possible implications of the Alcohol Resolution    
• David Rogers on The Blessings of Blogging
• Rick Thompson's Top Six Factors in the Election of Frank Page

Source Material:

Wes Kinney’s Famous Charts on CP Giving:    Jerry Sutton    Frank Page    Ronnie Floyd

Other News Sources, Blogs, & Articles:   

• Time Magazine   
• TheWashingtonPost 
• Dallas Morning News

Steven Taylor at Poliblog:

• The Standard Anti-Blogging Argument?
• More on the SBC Election
• Bloggin' Baptist, Redux

So, as I’ve been reading the blogs, I really felt that someone needed to chronicle the collective wisdom of Baptist Bloggers for posterity’s sake in the wake of the convention. Some have said that it is the first time that bloggers have been significant in affecting the course of a major institution in the U.S. While, there were many other factors involved, I feel that bloggers brought those things to light and helped give them a voice.  I put together a basic synopsis of opinion from the convention so that it can all be in one place. I picked out the pertinent and most original posts from a wide array of Baptist Bloggers and also added in the mainstream media’s take as well. Whatever your opinion on the 2006 SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC, there is no doubt that it was a significant event in the annals of communication and technology. 

In my opinion, through populist sentiment, the Southern Baptist Convention has begun a course change. As in the turning of any large ship, it is incremental and takes a great deal of time. It is encouraging that those who are seeking the course change are not liberal or moderate, but rather, rock solid conservatives who want to see us behave differently, follow scripture instead of tradition, and cease narrowing the parameters of cooperation. What if Wade Burleson had not publicly opposed the new IMB policies on baptism and private prayer language? What if Marty Duren had not launched SBC Outpost prior to all of this. What if folks like Art Rogers and Wes Kinney had not gotten involved in the process of reporting vital information to the rest of us through basic research and commentary? The IMB policies would be on the books unopposed and we would just have to deal with it. Now, I believe we are entering an era where these things will hopefully be dealt with in a positive way. The results remain to be seen, but I feel that Greensboro, 2006 had a lot to do with that. So, hopefully, this post will be a good resource to help chronicle the mood of bloggers in the week following the convention. Hopefully, we will not soon forget what brought us to this point so that we stay humble before the Lord and deep in prayer for the future.  Keep reading:

I'm going to get off the SBC stuff pretty soon - I promise. The purpose of this blog, however, is to chronicle where God is working in our lives and how He is drawing us closer to Him, even through indiscernable ways, hence, Downshoredrift.  Having been to the convention this past week, I saw God working in amazing ways. He has increased my vision, helped me see beyond illusions, allowed me to meet in person the amazing SBC Bloggers that I had only known through blogs (see sidebar), and answered lots of prayers. I want to write about that in installments, and they will be coming over the next few days (I'm obviously trying to be sensitive to my readers who are not Southern Baptist, and there are many - follow along with this, however).

Today, however, I have a post on what I feel are some of the problems with the SBC's Cooperative Program as it relates to medium-sized churches, one of which I am a pastor.  This is important, because I think that God is working in AMAZING ways through our convention, but the way we have set things up, while working well years ago, actually work against medium sized churches taking initiative to fulfill the Great Commission themselves while they support the Cooperative Program.  For many mid-sized churches, tough decisions have to be made and it becomes either one or the other.  Check out my thoughts at my other blog, writings.downshoredrift.com.

You've got to check out this article about the influence of Baptist Bloggers on the election of SBC president Frank Page. It even mentions my friend, Marty Duren!

Here's how the article starts:

For those who follow the internal politics of the Southern Baptist Convention (SBC) somewhat less avidly than the NBA playoffs or even the World Cup, perhaps the most interesting news out of their annual meeting, held this week in Greensboro, N.C., is that bloggers elected a president.

Thanks, Dorcas for the link!

Update 6.16.06: The Washington Post chimes in as well!

Pretty amazing stuff happened today. Dr. Frank Page won the presidency of the Southern Baptist Convention.  This is important because he was not the inner circle's nominee, and they have run nominees unopposed over a decade. He defeated Dr. Ronnie Floyd and Dr. Jerry Sutton handily.  Primarily, though, Dr. Page is interested in broadening the tent of cooperation among conservatives (this would lead to actions that in time would possibly overturn the IMB policies on baptism and private prayer language). 

Just before the election results came in, I had a chance to speak to Dr. Page and I asked him what his position was on the comments of Dr. Sutton re: making an amendment to the Baptist Faith & Message that would come against rank and file baptists having a private prayer language (see yesterday's post).  He said empmatically, "That will never happen."  His election, hopefully, begins a course correction in the SBC that will refocus us on missions and gospel and will begin to stop some of the shenanigans that have been going on.  What a day.

There were many factors at work in this. The most prominent were the issues of Cooperative Program giving (the way Southern Baptists fund missions) and a reaction against the inner circle, I believe. Interestingly, it also appears SBC bloggers played a role over the past several months after the issues of the International Mission Board and Wade Burleson came to the forefront (For a list of prominent bloggers, check out this post).  I have been able to meet and hang out with these guys the last couple of days, and I can tell you that they are just regular guys who want to see God work through the SBC.

I'll write more about this amazing day after I get some sleep, but check out what the Dallas Morning News said about the election:

But a handful of younger pastors used Internet blogs to call for new leadership and to underscore that Dr. Floyd's 16,000-member church had been a paltry contributor to the convention's Cooperative Program, its key means of pooling funds for missions, seminaries and other work.

Well, in a small way, mostly through comments, the Lord allowed me to be one of those younger pastors using blogs. For that I am grateful. I am also grateful for the friends I have made here the past couple of days. Unbelievable.

Well, I'm here! It has been a really interesting day as I attended the  pastor's conference and connected with a ton of SBC bloggers who are changing the world, one keystroke at a time. There has been a real positive atmosphere and  change is in the air, so Praise God!  It's late, all of my pictures were fuzzy so I won't be posting any images, and I'm WAY more limited on my internet connection than I thought I'd be (I could access from my room, but it's really complicated and I'm too tired). So, I'm downstairs at the Best Western in the lobby on a hotel computer!

Please be in prayer about tomorrow. The vote for president of the SBC is tomorrow. I have been positive about all three men who have been nominated (Ronnie Floyd, Jerry Sutton, and Frank Page), but I'm going to come out strongly against Jerry Sutton. Marty Duren linked to an interview that Sutton did today in the Baptist Press.  In the article, Sutton says this about the IMB Board of Trustees policy outlawing a private prayer language:

"Southern Baptists need a level playing field," Sutton said, citing the new policy for missionaries while the IMB president holds to the practice. "This is going to have to be addressed in the Baptist Faith and Message. I think there will have to be an amendment to it."

For anyone to say that, in my mind is beyond ridiculous. He has no idea how that would tear the SBC apart - how could he lead us? Please pray that we do not go down that road. I shudder to think what that would mean.

Tomorrow will be a big day as we head into the business aspect of the convention. Please be in prayer that God's will be done. I'll give an update tomorrow night!

By the way, Caelan had chemo today and he is doing great. His blood counts are high and God continues to perform His miracle through healing and medicine!  We give the Lord praise!

I have been trying to tell people for some time how prominent blogging is becoming. Well, Dorcas Hawker (baptist blogger) pointed to a report today in the Dallas Morning News about SBC Bloggers and their influence on the SBC Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC that I am going to next week.  Except for getting some facts wrong about Wade Burleson's take on Baptism (he does believe in immersion), the article is pretty interesting. It talks about such Baptist bloggers as Burleson (whom I admire), and Marty Duren (who has become a friend of mine). In addition to the aforementioned, other Baptist Bloggers of note writing from the convention will be, Art Rogers, Kevin Bussey, Steve McKoy, Joe Thorn, and David Phillips, among others.  I do not endorse all of these blogs, necessarily, because I do not know what they will be saying. But, they are all Baptist pastors and leaders who will be at the convention and reporting on it, and many of them will be being very creative and will be providing an interesting slant on things. I hope to meet quite a few of them.

Of course, I will try and report on it here, as well. I am going to try and find out where God is moving, how He is shaping lives and ministries, and what individuals think about the whole thing. I'm also going to be providing some human interest stories on things happening at the convention. So, if I can get a wi-fi connection, and things work out, this will be my first endeavor at reporting on an event from the blog so all you at home can follow along. In case you're wondering if anyone comes here, and you can't tell by the comments, I just passed 10,000 hits since March and have had visitors from over 20 countries! I have one of the smaller blogs, averaging between 100-150 hits a day, and most folks come to hear about Caelan (he's still doing really great, by the way, as we are witnessing a miracle I believe - that is the only reason I'll be able to go to this thing).  So, I'll continue to provide Caelan updates this week, but I invite you to journey along with me on what could be a very interesting week!

We had an infromational forum re: the upcoming SBC Annual Meeting next week in Greensboro , NC that I am going to as a messenger. I have not preached on any of these issues or have bothered our church with it. Frankly, I wanted to wait until things panned out, hoping that the situation would reverse itself and that it would not be something that we had to get involved in.  Well, today, I informed a group of interested folks from our church because I wanted them to know the situation and I wanted my church to be behind me as I went to the convention. I presented our elder's and my perspective on the issues. They were unanimous in their support and are praying that things change.  I gave a handout of basic information regarding the main issues that we are facing as a convention in Greensboro.   Here's a link. You can request a copy of the handout if you are a church member and you email me.

Also, we covet your prayers for Caelan tomorrow. He goes to Children's for another major dose of chemotherapy that will result in an overnight stay. I'll be staying here with the other kids, so it will be Mom and Caelan in the hospital. Please pray that he accepts the chemo well and that he does not run a fever this week. Also pray, please, that his white blood cell counts stay high so he can ward off infection. He is doing so well, but I want to keep praying so that God will receive the glory through all of this and so we do not forget from where our help comes from - our help comes from the Lord, Maker of Heaven and Earth.

Marty Duren has a post at SBC Outpost that got me thinking. I actually almost laughed out loud when I saw the first image and thought it was a joke.  But, then I realized that if we say that anything we do is for "missions and minstry," we can get away with it.  I wonder, with all our technology, support, staff, and strategy if we aren't seriously missing the point.  Well, I've actually thought that for years, but the juxtaposition of these images really brings it home:

Here's the USA Version of a Missions and Ministry Center

And, here's what it looks like in Africa:

Now, I know that is not a fair comparison, and that it would be impossible to have our staff offices and conference rooms in a thatch hut, but the point is, do we really need everything that we purchase for ourselves? Or, could we, as really wealthy Christians in America get by with a lot less? I think the answer is obvious.  I, for one, am really getting weary of funding multi-million dollar "missions and ministry buildings" while a large majority of the world's population gets by on less than a dollar a day.  At some point, we will be held accountable. 

What do you think?

WARNING:  THIS POST IS PRIMARILY FOR THOSE INTERESTED IN WORLD MISSIONS AND MINISTRY. I DO NOT want to spend much time on this, except to use it as a segue, but there are all kinds of problems continuing to brew in my denomination's world missions agency, the International Mission Board.  While great things are happening overseas, it seems that trustees here at home can't stop arguing about whether one person's view is going to prevail over another's. If you want to look into it more, you can follow it at my friend Marty Duren's blog, SBC Outpost.  I also had a previous couple of posts detailing the whole issue here, here, and here.

So, anyway, with all of these problems with denominational power structures, missions agencies, and people far away making decisions that many do not agree with (sounds like the government, doesn't it), why do we fool with all of this? I mean, why don't Christians in churches just network together and do the work that Christ has given us through missional networks and relationships instead of relying solely on a denomination? Why do we worry so much about what our denomination does or doesn't do? What keeps us from being obedient and just doing it, without waiting for others to get their act together? When we can work with the larger group, great, but otherwise, let's do what God has called us to do!

I have written a paper on how this can happen through Emerging Network Theory.  The basic point is that we all have relationships and networks.  What if we used them for the glory of God and we all started working together with people we already know, trust, and are in relationship with to be more effective in Kingdom work instead of depending primarily on a large denomination?  This is how we are reaching and serving hundreds of people on the Gulf Coast without help from our denomination at this point - through relational networks.  It is how any small group of people can begin working to change the world, without waiting for others to get their act together and do it for them.  Just some thoughts on this fair night . . .

Well, I'm going to weigh in with what I think about what is going on. If you have been following the International Mission Board meetings this week through the blogosphere, you know already the the Board of Trustees passed motions that reinstated Wade Burleson as a trustee and also changed their trustee handbook to no longer allow for public dissent after a policy or action has been adopted. I have waited to write about this so that all of the facts would be on the table and we would know more about what was really going on.

To catch you up, in November, the Board of Trustees approved two new policies involving missionary candidates (they cannot have a private prayer language and they must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church or one that has the exact same theology regarding security of the believer).  You can follow links that give you source material HERE.  Wade Burleson, a trustee and pastor from Oklahoma came out against the policies and the board voted to dismiss him.  There was a large outcry against this and the board reversed their position, as I previously noted. However, they also decided to handle the situation by silencing dissent in the future. This is VERY troubling, and any Christian organization, should allow for principled dissent. Truth is not a majority opinion. It is based on God's Word. Truth is not truth just because more people say so. We have drifted into the politics of persuasion and power, which proves the postmodernist claim that all of truth is relative since it is all about power plays and word games anyway. But, I digress.

Ben Cole, pastor of Parkview Baptist Church in Arlington, TX wrote a response to the position papers of the International Mission Board's Board of Trustees on the issues of private prayer language and baptism.  This response is devastating and it completely dismantles the argumentation of the trustees, in my opinion.  Admittedly, I am not crazy about his sarcastic tone as he addresses the issues, but it is obvious that he is passionate. When I am fired up about something, I come across REALLY STRONG in my writing, so I will give him some grace on that. Read it for the content and for the argumentation. Compare it to Dr. Hatley's views in his papers and decide for yourself. Here is the link to Rev. Cole's argument.  Also, read the comments if you can.

I am expressing my opinions guardedly on these issues on this blog. If you know me at all, you'll know where I stand - I am against these new policies. But, this is still the time for the making up of minds, so my main concern is to get the information out to establish a record. I am going to the Southern Baptist Convention Annual Meeting in Greensboro, NC in June. Sometime before that, I will present a position paper on these issues to our church for discussion so that you can know the issues before the event. In that paper, I hope to present both sides fairly, although I will be honest about where I stand. I have no desire to withhold information that tilts the argument in my favor. Let truth be truth. We will have discussion and an opportunity for questions and answers.

I am holding off on documenting a firm position until all the information that is going to come out has come out so that I do not spend a lot of time reacting to rumors and presumption.  These previous few posts were meant to introduce you, the good reader, to the events surrounding these new policies.  Sometime soon, I'll post what I feel the result is of these policies will be and how they affect our involvement in missions, but for now, on this blog, let's return to the task at hand - where and how is God working in our lives?

Well, the IMB (International Mission Board) has finally given their position on the two policies concerning private prayer language and baptism that I mentioned in my previous post. You can check them out by starting at sbcoutpost.blogspot.com and following the links to the position papers.   Another EXCELLENT critique with some pertinent links can be found at Wade Burleson's blog.

You can read it for yourself, and this is probably of more interest to theologians and pastor types, but let me just express my opinion: the positions espoused from the IMB's Board of Trustees espouse a strict cessationist (all of the miraculous gifts of the Spirit have ceased) and a landmarkist theology. This is VERY dangerous and is a really bad interpretation of Scripture. I am very concerned for the Southern Baptist Convention and feel that we have severely gotten off track. Read the papers and let me know what you think. I really am interested!

WARNING: This post contains insider Christian/Religious/Denominational stuff that might be harmful to your health, and or spiritual well being. Proceed at your own risk. I take no responsibility for heart burn or any other gastrointestinal maladies that might accompany the reading of this post.

I have in the past tried to stay out of denominational issues because it is a never ending sink hole of time and energy. But, there is something brewing within my denomination (the Southern Baptist Convention - SBC) that I have been watching carefully over the past few months. I don't want to go into all the details here, but it is basically over the International Mission Board's  (IMB) Board of Trustees (the IMB is the missionary agency for the SBC) deciding to adopt two new policies as it relates to missionary candidates. They are:

1. No candidate can have, or ever have participated in a private prayer language,  &

2. Each candidate must have been baptized in a Southern Baptist church by a qualified administrator (i.e. an ordained minister), or must have been baptized in a church from another denomination with basically the exact same theology as Southern Baptists.

Now, I know that you might be thinking, why is this a big deal?  Who cares what policies some board of trustees adopts? Well, as a Southern Baptists, our whole purpose in being together is for the sake of missions. We work together, pool our money in the Cooperative Program, and give to missions offerings because we believe that we can do more together than we can working separately. These two policies, however, go beyond our confession of faith (the Baptist Faith & Message) and seek to narrow the definition of cooperation. In my opinion, they seek to add to Scripture and develop policies that are not consistent with the Bible's teachings on these subjects. In short, I believe that they are unbiblical.  The difficulty is, if you are a missional Southern Baptist Church, as we are, we now have limited ability to work with our own missions organization because of narrow rules that they have defined.

In our church, probably 60% of our folks DO NOT come from a Southern Baptist background. We have folks from Reformed traditions to Charismatic traditions. We have Methodists and even folks who have no church background!:)  For those who never experienced believer's baptism or where baptized as an infant or through sprinkling, we have asked them to be rebaptized in a Biblical manner. But, for those who were Baptized Biblically in the Assembly of God or some other denomination whose theology is not exactly like ours, but who has a correct view of baptism, we would receive them.

We also have quite a few folks with Charismatic backgrounds. This has never been an issue in our church because we consistently hold up the cross of Jesus Christ as our rallying point. As long as we look to Jesus, we will get along, and we have, beautifully.

There are quite a few people who are talking about this. An IMB trustee named Wade Burleson spoke out against the new policies and has been blogging here about it for the past several months.   Unfortunately, the IMB Board of Trustees was so upset with his opposition, that they voted to have him removed as a trustee!  Bloggers from all over began to protest vehemently, led by Georgia pastor Marty Duren.  Marty has a great synopsis of the controversy, if you are interested.   Other SBC pastors and leaders that are blogging/discussing this are Kevin Bussey and Art Rogers.  Look around their blogs some and you'll find the information.

There have also been articles in Christianity Today and in the Baptist Press.  So, this is fairly interesting and could be of vital importance to our churches as we seek to continue to bring the Good News of Jesus Christ to the ends of the earth. 

I would submit to each of you that what the Bible teaches DOES matter. It is more imporant that we follow God's Word and really seek to understand what He is saying, than just be carried along by every motion from every group that claims to have authority. What do you think?